Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SEAMEN'S ARREST, ITALY

Mr. David Logan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question with you for your guidance. I sought to raise a Private Notice Question, but was unable to do so, the other day. When I got back to Liverpool I found that many people there resented my not having asked the Question I wanted to ask. It was about the humiliation of British seamen being chained together. It seemed to me necessary that this Question, for the sake of all the seafaring people of Liverpool and, indeed, of the whole nation, should be brought to the notice of the House. In your discretion, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that, as the men had been released, it was impossible to raise the matter as a Private Notice Question.
I therefore take this opportunity of raising the matter with the two-fold purpose of making it known that I did seek to raise the matter but that you, Mr. Speaker, in your discretion refused to allow a Private Notice Question; and of asking your guidance in case anything of the kind should occur again. If British seamen are humiliated again in a foreign

country by being chained together what action can I take in this House about it?

Mr. Speaker: I remember the hon. Gentleman's Question, and as a Question on the Paper it was in order, but I have to be careful about Private Notice Questions. There has to be some urgency about them. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he first asked his Question about these men, while they were in prison, I had no hesitation in allowing him to put forward the Question; but when they were released I felt that, in the interests of other hon. Members who had Questions on the Paper, it was not then a fit Question for a Private Notice Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Tariffs (Standardisation)

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what directions as to policy in regard to the standardisation and co-ordination of electricity tariffs throughout the United Kingdom he will give with a view to promoting efficiency and economy of distribution and use of electricity for industrial and domestic purposes, in accordance with the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): None at present.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend intend to take any action in the matter, in view of the widely varying conditions, particularly conditions of contract, that exist among the 13 boards in various parts of the country?

Mr. Lloyd: Following the Electricity Act, my predecessor approved the general principles of the proposals with regard to standardisation put forward by B.E.A. only last year.

Floodlighting (Free Current)

Captain Charles Waterhouse: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement as to the directions he will give to the electricity authorities that no current should be supplied free of charge.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am not proposing to issue such directions.

Captain Waterhouse: The London Electricity Board apparently made an arrangement to give a free supply of current to the Ministry of Works for floodlighting. Does the Minister consider it right that the cost should be met by domestic consumers? Is that not bad for the economy of publicly-owned services?

Mr. Lloyd: We ought to remember that before the war all the electricity supply companies banded together to make a similar offer for floodlighting. I think it was in 1935. In this case the proposal is to illuminate in this way a small number of public buildings: the Houses of Parliament, Somerset House, Nelson's Column, and so on. It would be rather a pity, simply because the industry is nationalised, if the Minister restrained the Board in what I believe is a helpful gesture on their part.

Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no objection at all to the floodlighting, which is very desirable? It is entirely a matter of whether he thinks it wrong in principle that a publicly-owned concern should make a free gift of current either to a Government Department or to anybody else.

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not think it should make free gifts as a general rule, but I do not think there is any case for intervening on this occasion.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When electricity was under private enterprise did not the consumers pay as they do now, and did not the consumers in London benefit from floodlighting?

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the unsatisfactory position in regard to electricity charges, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL AND COKE

Production and Stocks

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the coal production figure for four calendar months ended 30th April, 1952, compared with the same period of 1951; and the figures of coal stocks, respectively, at 30th April, 1952, and 30th April, 1951.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The figures are 75.3 and 74.6 million tons, and 13.3 and 9.8 million tons respectively.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that coal production in this four months' period is almost exactly the same as it was in the previous year and that we are committed to two million tons extra for exports this year, and that B.E.A. requires 2,500,000 tons extra, can my right hon. Friend say where the additional 4,500,000 tons of coal are to be found?

Mr. Lloyd: I think my hon. Friend will see that actual coal production is up by about 700,000 tons in the period under review. That is only part of the year. Also, he will see that the stock figures are so much higher. We are that much further on, by 3,500,000 tons, towards the building up of stocks by the end of the coal summer.

Birmingham

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of the coal supplied to domestic consumers in Birmingham is opencast; and what is the proportion in the country as a whole.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Fifteen per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the Minister think that this is an entirely unfair allocation? In addition, are not wagons now available—I understand they were not available before—for a wider distribution of opencast coal to every part of the country? Will the Minister consider giving an increased allocation of this coal in areas where there is local opencast-working?

Mr. Lloyd: This proportion between opencast and deep-mined coal in Birmingham was made by my predecessor last summer in anticipation of the difficulties in facing the winter, and for the reason —which, I am bound to say, was a good one—that he was anxious to save the railway coal wagons. Therefore, it was decided to supply the cities near the opencast workings by road lorry, as much as possible.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not a fact that the wagon situation has improved and is now quite different from what it was last summer? Are not wagons now available to distribute this opencast coal?

Mr. Lloyd: It is always easy to think in the spring that the situation is much better than it will be in the autumn.

Stocks, Accrington

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the present stock of household coal in Accrington; whether he will give an assurance that improved supplies are now arriving; and whether it is expected that the full allocation for all householders will be available during this year.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Iron Foundries (Coke Supplies)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the prospects of an improvement in the supply of coke to iron foundries.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that I cannot hold out any such prospects.

Mr. MacPherson: Does the Minister realise that this is a basic industry, doing very important work, and that in recent months it has been meeting difficulties from all directions? One of these directions was that it did not get help from the Department in improving coke supplies?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is an acute shortage of hard coke. The steel industry has to have the very highest priority for it.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are talking about a main area for the supply of iron which goes into houses? No matter how many bricklayers are employed, unless drain pipes are supplied the houses cannot be occupied. This is a vital in-dusty in the Stirlingshire and Falkirk area.

Mr. Lloyd: If there is to be a question of priority between the iron foundries and the steel industry the right hon. Gentleman should address his Question to the Minister of Supply.

Mr. MacPherson: Will the expected improvement in coal supplies include an improvement in the supply of coking coal, and will there be a likelihood of an improved supply of coke?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a question of coke oven capacity. Coke is produced not only by the National Coal Board but by

independent producers and by the steel industry itself. There is an acute shortage of hard coke in the steel industry.

Pit-head Baths

Mr. Joseph T. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in Lancashire during the past 12 months with the erection of pit-head baths.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am informed that one has been completed and 21 others started.

East Suffolk

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why it is that Group I coal is unobtainable in East Suffolk; and when there is likely to be a supply.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am afraid that it is not practicable for the National Coal Board to make all the eight qualities of house coal available in all consuming areas.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that I am speaking particularly on behalf of the small town of Southwold, which is very much cut off, and that I am not asking for all the eight varieties of coal? Cannot he see his way to allowing at any rate one of these groups of coal, namely, Group 1, to be sent to Southwold?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member may not be asking for all the eight varieties but just for a supply of Group 1, but that is the one variety which is in the shortest supply, forming only 2 per cent. of the large coal available. In fact, none of the quality is produced in the East Midlands coal field. The hon. Gentleman could have a group 2 or Group 3, which are not very different.

Mr. Evans: Why should the Minister discriminate against one particular area? Other areas which are much more remote from centres of production get this coal. Southwold is particularly badly placed in the winter, and we want the very best coal.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not discriminating. When the Coal Board drew up this scheme, which I thought a good scheme, they tried to make a balance so as to be able to supply most of the varieties that were required in the different areas


of the country, and also to avoid uneconomic transportation at too great distances.

Railway Workers, Swindon (Allowances)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why there was a reduction of the coal allowances to railway workers in Swindon to 28 cwt. for the period ending last April.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Fuel Efficiency Division

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will issue a statement in convenient form reporting the activities of the Fuel Efficiency Division of his Department during the period of 12 months ended 30th April, 1952; what extension of their activities took place compared with earlier years; what is the staff and cost, including all overheads, of the Fuel Efficiency Division; what new ideas it is bringing forward for inducing greater industrial fuel efficiency; and to what extent steps are being taken to secure broadcasting and television facilities for fuel efficiency propaganda.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I will certainly take any suitable opportunity of making a statement, but I do not think the matter calls for a White Paper.

Fuel-Saving Equipment (Loans)

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a position to announce the details of the £1,000,000 Government loan which is to be made available to assist various industries in installing fuel-saving equipment.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can now make a statement on the Government's plans to make loans available to assist industrial consumers to improve their boiler plant or the insulation of their factories and thus lessen the consumption of fuel.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Consultation on the details of the scheme are now taking place with representatives of industry and I hope to be able to announce the details by the end of the month.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Minister kindly let us have information as soon as possible about the applications which are made by industrialists?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

LEASEHOLD LEGISLATION

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to keep in force the provisions of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: asked the Attorney-General whether the Government will extend the provisions of the Leasehold Act, 1951, for a further two years, or until such time as comprehensive legislation is introduced.

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement in respect of proposed legislation to protect lessees of leasehold premises against eviction on the termination of their tenancies and against the imposition on them of increased rentals.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): The Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, does not expire until midsummer 1953. The Government are considering what legislation to introduce in its place.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the uncertainty which the present situation causes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the Government's intentions are announced soon?

The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have their attention fully directed to this matter.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I asked in Question No. 15 whether the Government would extend the provisions of the Act either for two years
or until such time as comprehensive legislation is introduced"?
Does he not agree that it is simple to give an assurance that if the comprehensive legislation is not introduced these provisions will be extended?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give an undertaking about legislation which will not be possible in this Session.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Assuming that Her Majesty's Government lasts sufficiently long, can we have an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that existing legislation will not be allowed to lapse and that something will take its place before it expires?

The Attorney-General: In regard to something else taking its place, I can certainly give an assurance. I think the right hon. Gentleman can also take that assurance in the light of the very unlikely nature of the possibility that he has just mentioned.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate that well before 1953 action will be taken so that people who are coming to the end of their tenancies, or are likely to come to the end of their leaseholds, will not be in danger of eviction or of higher rents?

The Attorney-General: We fully appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member, and we shall consider the matter very carefully.

FISHING RIGHTS, ICELAND

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of the note presented to the Icelandic Government recently, concerning the dispute over fishing rights; and what reply he has received to this protest.

Mr. James H. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Government of Iceland to his note regarding the extension of Iceland's territorial waters.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The Icelandic Government have not yet replied to the Note which Her Majesty's Government addressed to them on 2nd May. I am placing a copy of this Note in the Library.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that for over 60 years British trawler men have fished in these waters and that last year they were successful in catching over

600,000 cwt. of high-class fish? Is he further aware that unless something is done we shall lose this source of fish and the housewives will suffer? Will he give a promise that he will do all in his power to impress this on the Icelandic Government?

Mr. Nutting: I will certainly undertake to do everything within my power to get a satisfactory solution of this problem. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the text of the Note which has been placed in the Library, these considerations have been brought to the attention of the Government of Iceland.

Mr. Hoy: Will the Under-Secretary do all in his power to speed a reply to the Note he has sent because of the tremendous importance of these waters to the British fishing industry, and in consequence of the action already taken by another Government which by considerably limiting valuable fishing grounds, is holding up British fishing fleets?

Mr. Nutting: We shall certainly do all we can to expedite the reply of the Government of Iceland.

BRITISH EMIGRANTS, U.S.A. (MILITARY SERVICE)

Miss Margaret Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British subjects who have completed their period of National Service in this country are being called up for a further period of military service when they emigrate to the United States of America; and if he will make representations against this.

Mr. Nutting: Every male British subject between the ages of 18½ and 26 who is admitted to the United States for permanent residence is liable for training and service in the United States armed forces. Deferment is possible in certain circumstances and certain categories of men who have previously served in the United Kingdom Armed Forces are exempt unless the United States is at war or declares a national emergency. Men in this age group admitted on temporary visas are also liable after one year's residence in the United States. They may obtain release from this obligation, but are thereby permanently debarred from acquiring United States citizenship.
I should be glad if the hon. Lady would send me particulars of any cases of hardship which she may have in mind, other than the one which she has already communicated to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Miss Herbison: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I put to him one or two points which, I am sure, must cause grave anxiety to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to parents in this country? Is he aware that since putting down this Question I have had information from other sources and that it seems to be quite a regular thing that lads who have done their National Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is he aware that a lad who has done his National Service last year as a Z reservist have also been called up, and will he make representations to the authorities that an ally ought not to treat British subjects in this way?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member will appreciate from my answer that these conditions apply to permanent residents in the United States of America, and people who go to the United States of America must, therefore, accept the obligation of their being in the United States. The list of deferment categories is very broad, and if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter further I will give it to her.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are Americans in this country liable to a similar obligation?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any precedent, and, if so, what, for the conscription of British subjects into foreign armies, and whether this law was enacted with or without prior consultation with the Government of this country?

Mr. Nutting: That is a much wider question, of which I should like notice.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Do we understand that if a young American comes to this country and takes up what might be regarded as permanent residence, he is not eligible to be called up for National Service?

Mr. Nutting: Under the Act, which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself passed through this House, the answer

to his question is that no obligation for service falls upon American citizens in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: If that be the position, which no doubt it is, surely there ought to be a reciprocal arrangement with regard to British subjects?

Major H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask my hon. Friend whether this liability of British subjects may not easily involve them in having to serve under the same commander twice?

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is there not a simple answer to this, that if British subjects do not like the laws of America there is no reason why they should go there to live?

GERMANY

Forces, Soviet Zone

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what German military forces now exist in East Germany.

Mr. Nutting: Reliable reports show that in the Soviet Zone of Germany there is a uniformed para-military police force of about 53,000 men who are trained at least up to basic infantry standard, have ample small arms and machine guns 9f Russian, as well as ex-German, types, and sufficient tanks and medium and heavy artillery pieces for training purposes.
The force is organised on the pattern of a Soviet rifle army, and has such a high proportion of officers and noncommissioned officers as to suggest that it is intended as the nucleus of a larger force.
There is also a sea police of some 3,500 men operating a small number of fast, armed, light naval craft. A headquarters unit for an air police has been set up near Berlin, and an organisation is being established for the training of ground crews.

Mr. Reid: Is it a fact that the East German Government have made arrangements to expand this force rapidly in case of emergency?

Mr. Nutting: As I explained in my answer, there is every reason to suppose that this force is intended as the nucleus of a larger force and is capable of expansion.

Viscount Hinchingbrooked: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether or not the proposals for Western German re-armament include proposals for the creation of an effective military force in excess of that now existing in East Germany?

Mr. Nutting: That is a completely different question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this force, which, I understand, is the Bereitschaften, an exclusively German force, or is it integrated with Soviet forces?

Mr. Nutting: So far as I am aware, it is very much under Soviet influence.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Is not the setting up of this force quite contrary to any and all arrangements between the quadripartite Powers?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.

Free Elections (Proposed Four-Power Conference)

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the course of the correspondence now taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government about the future of Germany.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentle. man to the reply I gave on 7th May to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a reply is likely to be sent to Moscow?

Mr. Eden: I hope very soon—within the next day or two.

Atomic Weapons

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the current negotiations with Germany contemplate giving the Germans freedom to make atomic weapons.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

BRITISH EX-PRISONERS, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the sum per head each British ex-prisoner of war will get under the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Mr. Nutting: The fund, which will eventually become available under Article 16 of the Japanese Peace Treaty for indemnifying Allied ex-prisoners of war, and which is estimated at about £5 million, will be distributed by the International Red Cross.
As regards Article 14 about £1¼million will be available in the United Kingdom. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement made by the ex-Foreign Secretary on 25th July last.

Colonel Harrison: Will my hon. Friend give careful consideration to altering the statement made by the previous Foreign Minister so that the funds under Article 14 are only for those who were prisoners in the Japanese theatre of war and not in all theatres of war, because I believe that this is probably the wish of the majority of the people in this country? As these men have waited a very long time, I hope that we shall soon be able to give them that assurance.

Mr. Nutting: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE TREATY, 1373

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the principal commitments entered into by this country in the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373; and what revisions of the Treaty have been made since it was first signed.

Mr. Nutting: The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 has never been revised and it has been confirmed in later treaties on a number of occasions. The Treaty is couched in general terms and under it the two partners undertake to give one another mutual aid and assistance.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only copy of this Treaty which is available in the House is written in a language which is now commonly regarded as being dead, but that it is alleged that there is a copy in Norman French which cannot be found? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it should now be brought up to date and put into a language commonly understood by all those who will have to carry out its commitments? For the information of the


House and people generally, could the hon. Gentleman say what some of the commitments are?

Mr. Nutting: As I said in my answer, this is a general Treaty. Perhaps I may read an extract from it to indicate how general it is:
As true and faithful friends the contracting parties shall henceforth reciprocally be friends to friends and enemies to enemies and shall assist, maintain and uphold each other mutually by sea and by land against all men that may live or die, of whatever dignity, station rank or condition they may be, and against their lands realms and dominions.
I will most certainly undertake to place a copy of this translation in the Library for the information of the House.

NAVAL BLOCKADE, CHINA

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the representations which he has received from the United States Government asking for British participation in a naval blockade of China.

Mr. Eden: No such representations have been received.

Mr. Donnelly: I am very glad to hear it. Under those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of the United States about the statement made by the U.S. Deputy Secretary for Defence last Wednesday, and make it perfectly clear that in the event of any naval blockade which is undertaken without the consent of the United Nations, not one British ship or one British life will be risked because of any hysterics?

Mr. Eden: I have looked up the statement. I think it said that a number of alternative courses are available—they certainly are. Our own views on this matter are well known to the United States Government and, as I have said many times in the House, there is no commitment of any kind on our part.

KOREA

Prisoners of War (Repatriation)

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the services of Mr. J. D. Kingsley and Sir Arthur Rucker are being used by the United Nations in connection with the

repatriation of Korean and Chinese prisoners of war.

Mr. Nutting: The United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency, of which Mr. Kingsley is the Agent General and Sir Arthur Rucker is the Deputy Agent General, is not concerned with prisoners of war but with plans for civilian relief in Korea. Questions relating to prisoners of war concern the United Nations Command. This distinction of functions is both useful and obvious. Her Majesty's Government would not wish to suggest any change in the present arrangements at this stage.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister not aware that these two gentlemen safely repatriated scores of thousands of Polish and Yugoslav displaced persons after the war, many of whom were reluctant to go, and would not their great experience and advice be useful for resolving the deadlock over the prisoners?

Mr. Nutting: No doubt their advice, if they choose to tender it, is available to the United Nations Command, but, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, the repatriation of prisoners of war is a matter for the United Nations Command.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further measures he will recommend to the United Nations for distinguishing between Communist and Korean prisoners who resist repatriation because they have real grounds for fearing reprisals and those who resist it for other reasons.

Mr. Eden: As I said in my statement in the House on 7th May, I am satisfied that the census recently taken by the United Nations Command was exhaustive and fair. Full publicity was given to the official Communist statement of 4th April offering an amnesty to all prisoners of war who elect to return. The United Nations Command have also expressed willingness to allow any suitable international body, or joint national Red Cross teams, accompanied by observers from both sides, to conduct another census after an armistice. I do not, therefore, at present propose to recommend any further measures to the United Nations Command for ascertaining the motives of the Communist prisoners who have refused repatriation.

Mr. Mayhew: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be a tragedy if we had a new and more widespread outbreak of fighting because we declined to repatriate prisoners, many of whom could safely return? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider re-screening these prisoners much more searchingly, perhaps with a new commission, and do it now and not after an armistice?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should say that a number of these prisoners who do not wish to return could safely return. I assure him that there was no desire on the part of the United Nations Command to increase the number of prisoners who did not want to return. On the contrary, our desire being to get an agreement and to get our people out, the whole onus of wish, if I may so express it, on our part was that there should be as few of these as possible. That is why full publicity was given to all the undertakings given by the North Korean Government. Perhaps I can add also, for the hon. Member's information, that this is not a unique experience of people wishing to get out of Communist territories or of not wishing to return to them. The experience of Hong Kong is well known in the House in that respect.

Mr. Donnelly: Have any British observers actually seen of any these prisoners?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. We have had reports from the beginning of the screening to our representatives in Tokyo, and also there have been regular reports since it began, not only to us, but to the Commonwealth representatives in Washington. Therefore, we know how the figure has grown and that it has surprised everybody by the extent of its growth; but there has not been a British observer on the spot.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is proposed to be done with the prisoners who are not repatriated? Will they be retained as prisoners of war or liberated?

Mr. Eden: They will be liberated.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that no prospect has been held out to any prisoner of eventually getting an immigration visa to the United States?

Mr. Eden: I am quite sure that that has not happened. What I should like

to remind the House is that if this is the difficulty, there is every kind of offer of inspection, including by the Communists themselves, when the armistice is signed. If this is the only difficulty, they can come and see the men there for themselves if they want to.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports reach Chinese and North Korean prisoners of war about conditions in their home countries; and from what sources.

Mr. Nutting: It was agreed in December last that prisoners of war mail should be exchanged through the armistice negotiators. Chinese and North Korean prisoners can, therefore, obtain all the information about conditions in their home countries which their relatives and friends choose to send them in letters.

Mr. Mayhew: Have the United Nations been re-educating these prisoners against Communist doctrines, and is this still proceeding?

Mr. Nutting: That is another question.

Mr. Mayhew: No, it is not.

Napalm Bomb

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations that the United Nations' troops in Korea should discontinue the use of the napalm bomb during the cease-fire negotiations.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the very grave concern recently expressed by the Archbishop of York about the effect of the napalm bomb? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the humane treatment of prisoners from North Korea, does he not think there is a case to consider the humane treatment of people before they become prisoners?

Mr. Eden: I think the House understands that the whole of this question of the use of weapons is one in which it is extremely difficult to pronounce judgment. What the hon. Gentleman has asked is whether, during the armistice, I can take a special step in connection with a single weapon. I do not think that we can reach an armistice by stages by weapon. I think that the armistice must be concluded as a whole.

Mr. Hughes: Will not the Foreign Secretary express some horror about the burning of people alive?

Mr. Eden: Yes. I expressed horror at the original Communist invasion which started this whole business.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a good deal of disquiet about the use of this weapon which is not confined to the other side of the House, and that if we are to regain the moral leadership in international affairs, we must be prepared to take a stand somewhere against the use of weapons which are very disturbing to the conscience of a Christian society.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it not be helpful if the Soviet delegates to the Disarmament Commission would agree to our proposals for the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Unfortunately, the Soviet delegates refuse to discuss anything unless the weapons which they do not possess are first removed.

Dr. Horace King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Christian church folk in this country regard with profound disquiet the continued use of the napalm bomb, in view of the atrocious sufferings it inflicts upon innocent civilian people?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, but I think the House will understand—many of us understand—that almost all weapons create the most terrible suffering and I really do not think that the solution of this matter is to be found by placing one weapon in a particular category of horror. The truth is that it is only by stopping the fighting that we can meet the situation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (RUSSIAN WIVES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities for employment are offered by Her Majesty's Embassy in

Moscow to men married to Russian subjects and wishing to re-join their wives in Russia.

Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: If I present to the Secretary of State a case where a British diplomat wishes to return to his wife in Moscow, would it be favourably considered?

Mr. Nutting: I should like to see the case.

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Food Prices

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Food the retail prices of bread, butter, bacon, margarine, cheese and tea at 1st October, 1951, and 1st April, 1952, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Burton: May I ask if there is an increase in each of these six cases and, if the answer is in the affirmative, was that increase taken into account by the Chancellor in estimating the 1s. 6d. rise, or did it date after this increase?

Dr. Hill: In three of the commodities in question there is no increase; in one of the commodities there is an increase which was referred to by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. The two remaining increases, for cheese and for bacon, were made necessary to find the £20 million by which the subsidies were running over the level of £410 million when we assumed office.

Following are the figures:


—
Unit
1st October, 1951
1st April, 1951




s.
d.
s.
d.


Bread
1¾ lb. loaf

6

7½


Butter
1 lb.
2
6
2
6


Bacon
1 lb.
2
7
3
5




(average)
(average)


Margarine
1 lb.
1
2
1
2


Cheese
1 lb.
1
2
2
0


Tea
1 lb.
3
8
3
8




(average)
(average)

Tea (Railway Restaurants)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Food what restrictions his Department places on the supply of tea to British Railways restaurants and buffets as compared with private restaurants.

Dr. Hill: Both sets of establishments are treated in precisely the same way.

Dr. King: Since the Minister's reply shows that he provides an adequate amount of tea for restaurants on the railways, will he use his influence with the Minister of Transport to see that, for the first time in history, the railways provide a decent cup of tea for passengers getting tea on platforms, or in buffets?

Dr. Hill: One can hardly expect my right hon. and gallant Friend to assume responsibility for the strength of cups of tea.

Meat Imports

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to supplement our meat supplies from Continental countries.

Dr. Hill: Continental countries are in general net importers of meat. My right hon. and gallant Friend is, of course, always prepared to consider purchasing any meat of suitable quality and condition which becomes available subject to price and currency considerations. But we must continue to rely on the home farmer and on the traditional meat exporting countries for most of our supplies.

Mr. Willey: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some meat available now and that during the Election the Conservative Party said they would allow private enterprise to comb the world for meat? Would it not be a good idea if they did a little combing now in Europe?

Sugar Bonuses

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the prospect of a very good fruit harvest, he will reconsider the number of sugar bonuses.

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend could only increase the number of bonuses by buying more dollar sugar, and that is out of the question for the present.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that statistics show that we have adequate stocks of sugar now, and would it not be rather silly to allow some of our fruit to be wasted by not drawing on those stocks?

Dr. Hill: Stocks do not permit the four bonuses which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. May I remind him that those four bonuses take as much in sugar as the total of the allocation for the whole of the flour and sugar confectionery trades?

Mr. Willey: I have not asked for four bonuses, but extra bonuses.

Horticultural Commission

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food if he will set up an independent horticultural commission to reorganise and develop the fruit and vegetable trade.

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend has just received, from the Retail Fruit Trade Federation, their proposals for the establishment of a horticultural commission which he will examine in consultation with his colleagues.

Miss Burton: As the Parliamentary Secretary has anticipated a supplementary question, may I ask if he does not agree with the suggestions put forward and would he in order to convince the housewife that he really wishes to reduce the cost of living put forward another one?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend will consider very carefully the Report to which the hon. Lady has referred and the questions arising out of it.

Ration Books

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that in the new ration books just issued there are 34 coupon pages, against 28 coupon pages in the last issued ration books; and what is the reason for the additional six pages of coupons; and what extra foods it is his intention to bring on to the ration.

Dr. Hill: The ration book was designed to deal with any emergency that might arise before it ceases to be used in May, 1953. The answer to the last part of the question is, "None."

Mr. Lewis: Are we to take it that over £25,000 and tons of paper are being used for these extra pages for an unknown emergency? As the Prime Minister and General Eisenhower now say that war is less imminent, why waste money and paper?

Dr. Hill: The ration book was designed, and the printing of it begun, nearly a year ago.

Mr. F. Wiley: asked the Minister of Food why some new ration books have been inserted in a cardboard folder on which is printed, "Free enterprise has removed the need for sugar rationing"; and why this has been done.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Food why the Hereford Food Office issued new ration books in cardboard holders presented with the compliments of Messrs. Tate and Lyle, Limited.

Dr. Hill: Food Offices do not supply cardboard folders, with or without slogans, but if people present their ration books in folders we try to return them. I can only assume that in Hereford a folder was returned to the wrong person.

Mr. Willey: If my information does not agree with that of the Parliamentary Secretary, will he look into the matter, because it is very aggravating to those people who do not want this folder that they should be presented with it?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Department does not issue folders for this purpose.

Dr. King: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a bad thing for the Ministry to issue, not merely advertisements, but party political propaganda?

Dr. Hill: As the Ministry do not issue folders that supplementary question does not arise.

Officer's Behaviour (Magistrate's Criticism)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the stipendiary magistrate at the West London Police Court on 7th May regarding the behaviour of an enforcement inspector of his Department; and what disciplinary action he has taken.

Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir. It is regretted that this officer, in the course of cross-examination, made an inaccurate observation on the legal position which was immediately corrected by the legal representative of the Department. In all the circumstances, it is not proposed to take disciplinary action.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this kind of stricture has been pronounced on by magistrates over many years? When will his Department see that these officers possess no powers of any sort which are not possessed by the police and how do the Liberal consciences of his right hon. and gallant Friend and himself approve of these officers?

Dr. Hill: These officers have no powers not possessed by the police. They have no right of entrance into private premises. The evil is the evil of the control and restriction which makes enforcement necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any deterioration in the conduct of these enforcement officers since he became Parliamentary Secretary?

Dr. Hill: I have no means of making a judgment on that issue.

Unrationed Cheese

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Food the annual tonnage of unrationed cheese at present available in the home market; and the average price per pound, compared with the average price per pound of rationed cheese.

Dr. Hill: Imports in 1951 amounted to 33,000 tons and 700 tons of Stilton was also produced. The value of imports this year will be less than in 1951 owing to currency restrictions, but I cannot give the tonnage for the year.
Prices per lb. of unrationed cheese vary from 3s. 4d. per lb. to around 6s. 6d. per lb. compared with 2s. per lb. for ration cheese.

Mr. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these rations are totally inadequate and that the prices for unrationed cheeses are quite excessive? Will he tell the House when his Department are sending battalions of high-powered business executives overseas to search for these rare commodities which, we were


told not long ago, were only being held back by an incompetent Socialist Government?

Dr. Hill: The fall in the cheese ration is due to the fact that we cannot now afford to buy the 47,000 tons of cheese that we bought last year for dollars, and the reason for our being unable so to afford is the financial condition in which we found this country.

Mr. Maurice Webb: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how far we are getting supplies of cheese now from the Continent, Denmark and Holland, where the disability to which he quite rightly refers, of dollars, does not arise?

Dr. Hill: As I stated in my main answer, the amount of speciality cheese coming from the Continent was, last year, some 33,000 tons, about 16 per cent. of the total quantity of cheese available last year.

TRANSPORT FARE INCREASES (CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport when and where consultations took place between him and the British Transport Commission as required by Section 4 of the Transport Act, before he made his standstill order on fares; on what date notice was given to the members of the Commission that such consultation was to be held and of the nature of the matter to be discussed at such consultations; what members of the British Transport Commission were present; and what reasons were given him for the absence of those who were not present.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Mr. Speaker, I must apologise for the length of this answer.
On 10th April, the Chairman of the Commission, who was then out of London for Easter, was asked by my predecessor to meet him and the Secretary of State on the morning of the 15th. As the conversation was by long-distance telephone, the exact purpose of the meeting was not discussed, but I have no doubt that the Chairman knew that, among other issues, the fares problem would be discussed. Lord Hurcomb said that the Commission would also be available that day.
A meeting took place between the two Ministers and Lord Hurcomb on the morning of 15th April at the office of the Secretary of State. The Chairman was told that the Government had had under consideration the question of fare increases outside London and that the Minister proposed to issue a direction under Section 4 of the Transport Act, 1947, to suspend them. The Chairman was invited to consider this, consult his colleagues on the Commission and return with them later that day to meet the two Ministers. At this point he said he did not think it would be necessary for them to come.
Lord Hurcomb spoke to the Secretary of State on the telephone in the afternoon saying that he had met his colleagues on the Commission and had discussed the matter with them. While the Commission did not welcome the course proposed, they did not consider it necessary to meet the Secretary of State and the Minister.

Mr. Callaghan: While I wish the Minister no particular harm, may I congratulate him on his new office? May I ask him whether his predecessor's consultation with the Chairman of the Commission was not much more like an ultimatum than the particular form of consultation which was supposed to be laid down in the Transport Act, and does he not think that his predecessor was sailing very close to the legal wind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The Act in no way suggests that the concurrence of the Commission must be obtained. Policy must be a matter for the Government. The Government decided what they thought was best, and consulted, in the strict sense of the term, the Commission, whose concurrence was not obtained but whose concurrence was not necessary. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that this was quite right, that this was not one of the moments where large increases on individuals should be made in order to iron out anomalies that had gone on for a long time. A quite proper view was taken by. Her Majesty's Ministers of their responsibilities.

Mr. H. Morrison: While agreeing that, in the end, the Government's view could legally prevail, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that it is clear from his answer that the Commission were told what the


Government had decided to do, given an opportunity, within a matter of hours, of expressing an opinion, but clearly given the impression that whatever the Commission said the Government had made a decision. In fact, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. Surely he will agree that that does not conform in either spirit or letter with the word "consultation" contained in the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who took an active part in the debate on the 1947 Act, said that the purpose of the Transport Act would fail unless the Minister concerned was responsible to the House for the actions of that public corporation. That procedure has been exactly followed.

Captain Robert Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the repeated objections from the Opposition Front Bench to Government intervention in this matter are in no way in keeping with the urgency of this situation as regards London, or the interests of the travelling public? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to speed up the Transport Commission's consideration of the anomalies?

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we are not discussing London, but the provinces? This has nothing to do with London. Does the Minister not appreciate that his predecessor had a period between 15th April and 1st May before these increases were due to come into force? Why should he give the Chairman of the Commission just a few hours' notice in which to consult his colleagues and have a proper meeting before taking a final decision of this sort? May I, finally, ask him if it is not the case that the question of consultation was specifically written into the Act to prevent this sort of thing from happening?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It seemed to the Government—I think quite rightly—that public anxiety should be allayed at the earliest opportunity. The Easter holiday intervened—[An HON. MEMBER: "The elections."] The elections had nothing to do with it. Thursday, 10th April, when Lord Hurcomb was telephoned, was the eve of Good Friday. It appeared

to be best to meet as soon as possible after the Easter holiday. That is why the meeting took place on the 15th.

CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Prime Minister what are the more important matters of policy on which he is prepared to answer questions intended for the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, and the Lord President of the Council, respectively.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): In the main, matters on which Questions could not conveniently be answered by the Departmental Ministers concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: As they are apparently limited to matters of contemplation and advice, does that mean that there is nothing we can ask these co-ordinating Ministers through the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: It is always hard to say that no contingency can ever arise on which any intervention by the Opposition, however unjustifiable, might not occur.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not a fact that certainly the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of etc., etc., and, I think, by implication the Lord President, in his co-ordinating capacity, were declared to be responsible for policy—certainly the Secretary of State, and I thought the Lord President, also, for the policy of the Ministries of Food and Agriculture? If that is so, which I believe to be the case, does it not follow that somebody has to be answerable, as distinct from the Departmental Ministers, for the policy of those Departments under the supervising Ministers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government as a whole are responsible.

Mr. Morrison: I follow that, but it is an absurd answer because if the whole of Her Majesty's Government were at once simultaneously to answer Parliamentary Questions it would be an interesting spectacle. I want to know which Minister is to answer those aspects of Questions. Is it to be the Prime Minister? We really ought to know.

The Prime Minister: If any doubt existed in the end, in the very difficult—[Interruption.] I was putting the opposite way. If any doubt of that kind existed, of an almost metaphysical character, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House of Commons would endeavour to step into the breach.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was unable last week to answer a Question about the terms of reference to the Consultative Committee on fares outside London, will the Prime Minister answer it, if I put it down to him, or will he seek to transfer it?

The Prime Minister: I will either answer it or seek to transfer it in accordance with what may seem to be the proper practice.

Mr. Callaghan: Would it not be far better if the Prime Minister would tell us now, if he knows, what he is prepared to answer?

The Prime Minister: I should like to see the Questions before I answer them.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that none of the co-ordinating Ministers for the eight Ministries of Transport, Fuel and Power, Agriculture, Food, the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry and Supply, are Members of the House of Commons, what steps he will take to make the Government more answerable to this House on major matters of policy concerning these Departments.

The Prime Minister: Seven of the eight Departments mentioned are in the charge of Members of this House.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not that something we are very doubtful about in view of recent developments? Does the Prime Minister not realise that having brought the issue of co-ordinating Ministers out into the light of day, there is now a responsibility on him to see that the overlords are answerable in some way to this House? If so, how is he to achieve that?

GOVERNMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS (MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in co-ordinating or supervising the public relations activities of the Government.

The Prime Minister: To help his fellow Ministers in ensuring that information about the activities of their Departments, which should be available to the Press and the public, is readily available in an accurate and convenient manner.

Mr. Jay: May we take it that the responsibility for electoral propaganda is being transferred from Lord Woolton to Lord Swinton? If so, is the Prime Minister satisfied with the result?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that it was an obligation upon the Government to define with exactness and refinement the way in which they take measures which they consider necessary to inform the public of their point of view; but I certainly have felt that activities of that kind are necessary to enable us to deal with what I might call Socialist terminological inexactitudes.

TRIESTE (ZONE A ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I desire to make a statement.
The House will be aware that the conversations between representatives of Her Majesty's Government, the United States Government and the Italian Government on the subject of administration in Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste were concluded on Friday, 9th May. The Memorandum of Understanding embodying the arrangements to be carried out was made available to hon. Members on 10th May as a White Paper, and I have thought it right to take this first opportunity to make a brief statement on the subject.
Let me first say something about the new arrangements. The essence of the matter is this. While all powers of government in the zone are retained by the Zone Commander, a large block of the civil government will henceforward be administered, under the Zone Commander's direction, by an Italian Director of Administration. The remaining functions of government will continue to be administered by the Zone Commander direct through United Kingdom and United States officials.
These latter functions—which, I repeat, will be administered direct through United Kingdom and United States officials—include the control of the police, of the port and all telecommunications; the enactment of legislation and the administration of justice; and other functions connected with the exercise of international responsibilities assumed by the United Kingdom and United States Governments in the Zone. The Zone Commander remains responsible for policy direction and will make whatever arrangements he sees fit to co-ordinate the administration as a whole. The Italian Government will be able to make their views on all matters affecting Italy through an Italian Political Adviser.
As emphasised in the joint communiqué issued at the same time as the Memorandum, the new administrative arrangements in Zone A are designed to give greater practical recognition to the predominantly Italian character of the Zone; and I may say here that, even before the talks took place, the Italians were, in fact, already handling many administrative functions inside Allied Military Government. At the same time, both the United Kingdom and United States Governments have had very much in mind the international obligations and responsibilities which they have assumed in the Zone and I am satisfied that there is nothing in the new arrangements which will impair their ability and intention to carry out those responsibilities.
I should like to assure the House that the United Kingdom and United States Governments have throughout had in mind the natural Yugoslav interest in the outcome of these talks. While it has not been possible to keep the Yugoslav Government informed of every stage in the long and complicated negotiations—they lasted nearly six weeks and involved a detailed examination of all aspects of the existing structure of the government in the Zone—contact has been maintained both in London and Belgrade. The limited scope of the talks was repeatedly explained to the Yugoslav Government. On 9th May I gave the Yugoslav Ambassador full information in advance of the agreements reached and I handed him advance copies of the Memorandum of Understanding and of the communiqué. Similar action was taken by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade.
I regret that Marshal Tito should have felt it necessary to attack the new arrangements. We have given our assurance that nothing has been done to impair our ability and intention to carry out our responsibilities in Zone A. In particular, I cannot accept that there has been any violation of the provisions of the Italian Peace Treaty. On the contrary, Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are satisfied that the administrative adjustments which we have agreed upon—adjustments which, in our view, we are fully entitled to make—leave the basic juridical position in the Zone unchanged.
I would conclude by expressing the firm conviction that the new arrangements, confined as they are to administration in Zone A, are entirely without prejudice to the final solution of the problem of the future of the Free Territory as a whole. As I have said more than once, Her Majesty's Government are most anxious that a settlement should be reached as soon as possible by direct conversations between the Italian and Yugoslav Governments.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I should like to ask him if he is aware that many of us are genuinely worried about the effect of these discussions on Yugoslavia, and the relationship between Yugoslavia, Italy and ourselves?
Is not it clear from his statement that Yugoslavia was not given substantial information until about the Friday or the Saturday, until the end of the discussions? Has he noticed that Marshal Tito has expressed indignation about these conversations; and would he—I speak in all sincerity on this matter, and with no desire to score any points—keep in mind and do all he can to bring into direct consultation Italy and Yugoslavia, if necessary with us and the United States? Does he realise that this problem will not be settled adequately if Yugoslavia is kept out of the consultations?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I very much agree with all the latter part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, from the outset we have tried to make it plain that we are dealing—as it is evident to the whole world that we are—solely with the administration of Zone A and nothing else; and, as the right hon.


Gentleman knows very well, there is an entirely Anglo-American responsibility towards that area.
I am sorry, as I said, that there should be any view that we have gone beyond what we should, but I simply cannot accept it because, as I must point out, even at this time the power exerted by the Yugoslav Government in Zone B far and away exceeds those that any Italians will exert now in Zone A. The right hon. Gentleman also will bear in mind that it was the late Government who declared in 1948 that both Zones should go to the Italian Government, and that has not exactly facilitated the present negotiations.

Mr. Hector McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman is legally right. But would not he agree that the political consequences of the legal actions are very wide indeed, and that he gave an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that he would keep the Yugoslav Government informed—I think he said daily? Would not he agree that he was risking substantial political consequences by not handing them the full documents until 9th May?

Mr. Eden: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I wanted to keep the Yugoslav Government as closely informed as I could. But anybody who has had dealings in international negotiations of this kind will know that it was not in my power to do so before I knew what shape the final arrangements were going to take. We were dealing with a large number of complicated administrative matters, and what we did was to tell them as far as we could stage by stage. But it was not possible to bring the Yugoslav Government into discussions on administrative arrangements in a zone for which we are responsible. If I had done so chances of agreement would have been absolutely ruled out.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would have been possible to take Yugoslavia into the confidence of the people at the Conference? Surely it was possible to inform them more than by handing them Press communiques, which was all that was done, and by reading to them the final communique at the end. Does the

Foreign Secretary realise that we cannot reach agreement on administrative actions in Zone A without prejudice to the future settlement, because the fact that this has brought the Zone more under Italian administration tends to pre-judge the future disposition of that Zone and adequate protection to the minorities in the Zone?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his final conclusion. There is a special Article dealing with the minorities. I must point out that what we have done in response to a request from the Italian Government, which surely the House does not suggest that we should have rejected, is to give them some further powers of administration when the late Government had told them that they could have the whole of Zone A and Zone B. In one of the most difficult negotiations we have ever seen we have done our utmost to go a step towards a final solution. I hope that the parties will talk together and I hope that both sides of the House will encourage them to talk together.
I assure that hon. Gentleman that I should have liked very much to give more detailed information as we went along. If I had, I should only have misled the Yugoslav Government, because the final form of the negotiations was not the same as at the beginning and we should have been involved in endless and tortuous delay. I hope that the House will help the American Government and ourselves to get both parties to stop polemics and get down to direct negotiations.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that all of us desire direct negotiations to take place, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think the position has been made more difficult and that it will be very difficult for the Yugoslays and the Italians to get together now? Does he not think that the time might arise when we can assist in reaching some agreement?

Mr. Eden: This really is the kind of situation where the negotiator has only a choice of difficulties. I had to take the step of promoting the negotiations. I could not have turned down the request, which was a reasonable one. What I have done was to try to get a step by step solution of the matter, which was the only way to proceed. The


Italians have far less powers of administration in Zone A than the Yugoslavs have in Zone B. I hope that they will get together and try to find a way.

BROADMOOR INQUIRY (MEMBERSHIP)

The Minister of Health (Mr. fain MacLeod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to fulfil the promise made by my predecessor on Tuesday last, to announce the arrangements for further investigation of the problems raised by the recent incident at Broadmoor.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the following have agreed to undertake the inquiry:
Mr. J. Scott Henderson Q.C.—Chairman.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse).
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger).
Dr. P. K. McCowan M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.M., Medical Superintendent of the Crichton Royal Hospital, Dumfries, and President of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association.
The terms of reference are:
To inquire into the adequacy of the security arrangements at Broadmoor and to make recommendations.

Mr. Peter Remnant: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his "jump bid," may I ask him whether the proceedings of the inquiry will be held in public or in private and, if the latter, as I hope they will be largely, will he, when he gets the report, consider publication of the findings and the recommendations?

Mr. MacLeod: My hon. Friend will realise that the purpose of this investigation is to inquire into security arrangements, and from the very nature of the inquiries it is impossible to conduct them in public. But, on the other hand, the question of procedure is a matter for the Committee itself, and I have informed the chairman that if he desires to hold one or more sittings in public to hear any representations that he may think suitable, I should not object to that.
On the question of the publication of the report, I will, of course, give the fullest information that I can give to the House and to the country either by statement or by a White Paper. But, again, my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot undertake to publish the whole of the report because security arrangements and inquiries will probably be involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, pending the issue of such report as may be published, no disciplinary steps will be taken against any members of the staff at Broadmoor until the report is available?

Mr. MacLeod: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt referring to the fact that an investigation has been instituted by the Board of Control into the conduct of an attendant at Broadmoor. There is a special procedure laid down in these matters called "Estacode" and procedure under that has already been started. It would be quite improper for me to interfere in any way with that. On the other hand, I think it reasonable to say that although that inquiry will proceed, and will proceed to its end, the report of the Committee will be received by me before I take action, if action be necessary, on the disciplinary report which I shall receive in due course.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 8th May.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 8.—(DISCHARGE OR REDUCTION OF TAX IN CERTAIN CASES.)

3.45 p.m.

The Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in page 9, line 43, deals with men's outsize garments and does not deal with women's outsize garments. It may be convenient for the Committee to discuss on this Amendment the question of women's outsize garments. If that be the wish of the Committee, I shall allow discussion on the understanding that women's outsize garments are not discussed on the Fourth Schedule.

Miss Alice Bacon: I take it that that Ruling means that there will be no discussion on the separate Amendments to the Schedule. Nevertheless, the main principle of those Amendments stands, and I should like to ask whether they will be called even though we do not discuss outsize garments.

The Chairman: I shall not make any promise about what Amendments will be called and what will not when we come to that stage. I thought that the principle of outsize garments could be discussed now, and that that would make for a shortening of the discussion when we get to the Fourth Schedule.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While I am sure that we all agree that it would be most helpful that in the discussion we should include the question of women's outsize garments as well as men's, I trust that when we come to the general discussion of the various groups it will be in order, at least in general terms, to discuss women's outsize garments, and that if Amendments are called at the end of that group discussion, it will be possible to press one or two or whatever is the right number of those items, because we shall not have a chance of voting on them separately.
Further, I am sure you will have noticed, Sir Charles, that most, if not all, of these Amendments, apart from the differentiation which my hon. Friends and I propose between various sizes, propose an increase in the D level, which is not in any way related to the problem of outsize garments. Therefore, I trust that it will be in order to discuss the D level on those Amendments and, if appropriate, to vote on a certain number of them.

The Chairman: Yes, that is what I thought. The D level is rather a detail, but the principle of women's outsize garments, I thought, might be discussed with the Amendment affecting the men's.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any amount specified in the prescribed list in relation to a garment as hereinafter defined (not being an outsize garment or a special garment as hereinafter defined) made up at the request of the purchaser to measurements given by him to the seller and which has been cut singly by a special order cutter shall be deemed to he increased by fifteen per cent. of that amount.
(4) Any amount specified in the prescribed list in relation to an outsize garment or in relation to a special garment shall be deemed to be increased by fifteen per cent. of that amount if not so made up and by thirty per cent. of that amount if so made up.
(5) In this section—
garment" means overcoat, suit, jacket, waistcoat, trousers, breeches or pantaloons, being in each case of men's or boys' wear;
outsize garment" means a garment being an overcoat to fit a person having a chest measurement (measured over the waistcoat) exceeding forty-two inches, a suit, jacket or waistcoat to fit a person having a chest measurement (measured over the waistcoat) exceeding forty-two inches, or a waist measurement (measured over the trousers) exceeding forty inches, and trousers, breeches or pantaloons to fit a person having a waist measurement (measured over the trousers) exceeding forty inches;
special garment" means a garment (not being an outsize garment) appropriate to a man not less than six feet three inches in height, such garment being an overcoat exceeding forty-eight inches in length, a jacket exceeding thirty-three inches in length and with a sleeve measurement exceeding thirty-four inches, trousers with an inside leg measurement exceeding thirty-four inches, or a suit comprising such a jacket and trousers.
This is an interesting subject because one can see in this Committee the sort of people who might be benefited as a result of this Amendment affecting outsize garments. The name of the new Minister of
Transport occurs to us immediately, and then there is my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and other people of that build. When I consulted the trade, I found that they refer to these people as those of "excessive figuration," which I thought was a rather good phrase to use in this respect.
All Statutory Instruments about Utility apparel in the past have recognised the necessity to modify prices for garments made to special measure, plus an extra allowance of 15 per cent. for men's outsize garments. It is an accepted fact that a certain percentage of people, because of this excessive figuration to which I have referred, cannot be suitably attired in ready-made garments and I suppose none of us would want them all to be clothed in sets of "reach-me-downs."
It is therefore necessary, when catering for this class of the trade, for a complete set of measures to be taken for each individual customer, and for the garments to be cut individually to a special pattern made to the measurements given. In most cases, one or more fittings would have to be given, I am informed, in order to ensure a satisfactory result. When we come to the making up of such garments, each has to be treated as a separate unit, unlike garments sold ready to wear, in which case many thicknesses of material are cut at once and bulk making up lowers the cost considerably.
The operation of this Finance Bill will compel the bespoke tailor to use very low-grade cloth and linings in order to make a suit come within the D level. I should like to know from whoever is to reply why it is that, while allowances were made under the Utility scheme for these considerations, presumably, the same considerations are not taken into account in the Schedule. For instance, let me take as an example, from the Fourth Schedule of the Bill:
Overcoats, cloaks, raincoats, mackintosh coats, oilskin coats, fishermen's oilskin frocks and overall coats, being garments exceeding 42 inch in length and of Class B material.
It is a fact that, in the past, under the Utility scheme, there was an allowance here of 26s. 4d. wholesale and 34s. retail above the Utility ready-made level for bespoke tailoring. There were also permitted increases for outsize garments of 15 per cent. No provision is made in this Schedule for any of these considerations, and the trade seems to think that

this is very curious. The figures I have quoted, plus the 15 per cent., are lower allowances than would be allowed in the case of a suit, and in this Amendment we suggest a far simpler form than even the practice that was allowed under the Utility scheme.
For the purpose of this Amendment, if a ready-made suit of standard size is represented by x, art outsize ready-made suit will be x plus 15 per cent. If it were a case of a suit which was made to measure, it would be represented by x plus 15 per cent., and, if the customer happened to be an oversize person, it would be represented by x plus 30 per cent. I take it that that proposition is simple enough for the Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that we want fair terms for the trade. After all that hon. Gentlemen opposite have said on the subject, I am sure that they will not want men's suits to be produced in the mass, and will not want that degree of uniformity which would ensure that everybody could be identified through the tailor he employed.
I suggest that this is a reasonable proposal, that it is something which was catered for under the old Utility scheme and is something which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will wish to be catered for now. I hope the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary appreciate that this matter touches a principle of very great importance to the trade, and that, before the end of the debate. the Government will say that they are prepared to grant some amelioration of the position.

Miss Bacon: Since we are discussing the principle of both men's and women's outsize garments in the debate on this Amendment, I should like to put forward the reasons we on this side of the Committee have put down certain Amendments to the section of the Schedule dealing with women's clothes.
I think it is important to get established this afternoon the principle that there shall be a higher D level for outsize and extra outsize than there is for normal sizes. The man or woman who is outsize has to pay more for clothes, and that is an anomaly in itself, but now, under the D scheme, no allowance is made for this fact, and that means that not only are such people paying extra in the amounts which they pay for


clothes, but they are also paying a tax of one-third on the extra material which they are called upon to buy.
It will be noted that, in the Amendment relating to women's clothes, we have followed the line of the previous Utility scheme; that is, in respect of coats and jackets, the allowance proposed is 7½ per cent. and 15 per cent., according to size, but, in the case of dresses, as in the past the allowances are 7½ per cent., 15 per cent. and 22½ per cent. This is the practice which was followed under the old Utility scheme, and it is a practice which worked out well. We have put in these figures because they are identical to the extra amounts which the wholesaler charges to the retailer for garments of these particular sizes, and it means that, if we accept these figures, a person who is outsize will no longer be paying extra taxation because of the fact that he or she is outsize.
With regard to women's underwear, it will be noticed that we have not followed the principle of percentages, but have instead put down the various amounts against each particular item. There is nothing very sacrosanct about these amounts, but it will be noted that in each case they are the old Utility scheme figures, and the increase is not nearly so much as the increase with regard to outer wear. The reason for that, I am given to understand by the trade, is that the extra cost of material needed for outsize under-garments is not such a great proportion as that needed for outsize outer garments.
I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), has said. He has argued that there should be an allowance, as in the past, for bespoke tailoring, but I should like to emphasise that it is not only the small tailor who makes clothes to measure, but also the big tailor. Many of the multiple and other shops throughout the country also make men's suits to measure, and in some cases they also make women's suits to measure.
It may be argued by the Chancellor that it is not right to give an extra allowance to bespoke tailoring because a person can indulge in some kind of luxury if he can afford to have a suit made to measure rather than to buy one "off the peg," but I would point out that many people. such as deformed and crippled

people, who are difficult to fit, have to buy their clothes made to measure and cannot go into a shop and buy ready-made clothes. Because of this fact, I appeal to the Chancellor to make an allowance for bespoke tailoring, as well as an allowance for the outsize person.
I hope that most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will regard it only as justice that those who have to pay extra for their clothes, either because they are outsize or because, in some way, they possess difficult figures, should not be called upon also to pay extra taxation. I hope, therefore, that the principle embodied in this Amendment will be accepted.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: From the point of view of my own purchases, I have at the moment no interest in this particular argument, but I am a little fearsome of the future, and that is one of the reasons I support this Amendment wholeheartedly. I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) will add his weight in an effort to try to move the Chancellor to meet us on this point. I am also glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) is here because he will, no doubt, join forces with us, as he has a personal interest.
The argument for some alleviation for those people who are somewhat bulky and who require more cloth for their clothes, and who therefore have to pay more for their clothes than those of us who are slimmer, applies to both men and women. It is very difficult to sustain the argument that because of some physical peculiarity a person should have to pay more tax than someone who has not that peculiarity.
As the D scheme stands at the moment, it is almost impossible for any person who can be described as an outsize or even as a larger figure to buy tax-free clothing. I believe that to be an anomaly which should be rectified. It is also true, incidentally, that there is no provision in this scheme for the easement of Purchase Tax on maternity garments. Although this, of course, does not affect the male side of the question, it is undoubtedly something that should be looked into.
During and since the war, outsize women have given up doing what many of them did before the war, and that is make their own clothes. As a result of the war and of the new systems adopted by the clothing industry, this practice has very largely fallen into disuse, and many of the outsize people who made their own clothes before the war are now going to the shops and buying them. Another factor which has helped to bring about this position is that nearly all the textiles bought over the counter bear Purchase Tax at the rate of 66⅔ per cent. That being so, it is much cheaper for people to buy through the ordinary clothing channels ready-to-wear garments and to have any necessary adjustments made to them.
The Utility scheme made provision for people in this category, and I do not think one can justify any new scheme which does not make provision for an extension of the easement given under the Utility scheme. By the abolition of the easement given under the Utility scheme, the outsize person not only pays the normal rate of tax, but is subject also to the uplift, which increases still further the amount of tax he or she has to pay.
I agree, in view of the complications of the D scheme itself, that any scheme adopted must be simple to operate. None of us would like to see the D scheme further complicated, but I believe it is possible for my right hon. Friend, in co-operation with the trade organisations, to produce a very simple scheme which will not add to the present difficulties of administration and will, at the same time, give what is wanted not only by the trade but by the outsize people themselves.
I support hon. Members opposite in asking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to look very closely into this matter to see if he cannot make some adjustments in order to ensure that those with difficult figures shall not, because of their size, pay any more tax than is absolutely necessary.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: When I first raised this matter in the House—and I think I was the first one to do so—I was met with a blank refusal by the Chancellor. He said that nothing at all could be done in this direction. Some of us followed the matter very carefully and raised it in the country as well, and I was very heartened to

receive a letter from the Chancellor recently saying that, following my Question and particularly, I think, my reference to the fact that in the Douglas Committee's Report no reference was made to out-sizes at all and that it looked as though there had been some omission, or at any rate that those preparing the D scheme had not noticed that there was no reference to outsizes, the matter was now being looked at, and that, while he could not give any special indication as to what he or the Committee would do, it was possible that something could be done about the matter in the later stages of the Finance Bill.
I can assure the Chancellor that this is a very important matter indeed. Statistics show that there are very great numbers of men and women in the country, particularly women, who are above the ordinary stock size. Some alleviation was given to such people under the Utility scheme by the allowance of percentages above size 42 in. bust. Because of the amount of publicity given to this matter and the request made by outsize women for something better in the way of clothing than they had previously been able to get, the manufacturers have recently been making a very special effort to deal with this question.
I think the manufacturers have done exceptionally well in producing garments which are of a much better cut, fit and quality than outsize women have been able to procure in the past; but they are handicapped by the fact that there is no tax allowance on the extra cost incurred in producing outsize garments. Under the D scheme, the tax, at any rate on dresses and blouses over size 42, commences to be paid at exactly the same level as for ordinary sized garments.
I do not want to stress this point too much because I think it is now agreed on both sides of the Committee that something was left out of the D scheme when it was prepared and has been left out in the Schedule that we have here. I am certain that the letter which the Chancellor sent to me conveys at any rate an assurance that the matter is under consideration and that something will be done in relation to raising the D level as it affects outsizes.
Had that guarantee not been given, I think there would have been much more agitation both in this Chamber and in the


country outside concerning this matter. However, I should first of all prefer to hear what the Chancellor's suggestions are and to see whether they meet the requirements of the manufacturers and purchasers of outsize garments of every description.

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: I should like to say one or two words following upon the remarks of the hon. and gallant Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), if I may describe her in that way because, in her fight for fair treatment for those of us who are outsize, she has been very gallant indeed. I am sure the whole Committee will agree with that.
It is a fact that those of us who are for one reason or another outsize are exposed to all sorts of jeers and comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), endeavouring to be kind just now, talked about our physical peculiarities—a remark which can be taken to mean more than one thing. It is also a fact that the Press, the music hall and the general public in many cases regard those of us who are outsize as fair sport and figures of fun. It seems rather hard that on top of that the Treasury should think we are fair game for being made to pay more Purchase Tax than anybody else.
I do not know whether the words of the Amendment are suitable to the problem, but I hope that the Government will be able to think kindly of those of us who are outsize. Most of us have to pay more for our clothes than the average small man, and to be asked to pay more Purchase Tax on top of that is rather hard. I am sure the Committee will agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange and myself that we should not be singled out for harsher treatment than other people. In conclusion, perhaps I ought to express my personal interest in this matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: After the weighty contributions to which we have just listened, it is with some trepidation that I address the Committee for a couple of minutes. I strongly support what has been urged on both sides of the Committee on this point. A few weeks ago I was speaking in my constituency and questions were invited. We have questions at our meetings, but I am not sure whether hon.

Members opposite have them at theirs nowadays. A question was put by a councillor very prominent in public life on Merseyside who weighs 18 or 19 stones.
He asked when there was going to be in the House of Commons a champion of the outsize man comparable with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) who has put up such a great fight for the problems of the not-so-slim woman. I said I was sure there was great sympathy on this point in the House of Commons, and now I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) will be willing to step into the breach.
As the De schedule stands at the moment, there is a tax on a man or woman because of his or her size. It is bad enough that these outsize persons should have to pay more for the material they have to have made up, but now, as a result of this D scheme, for the first time they will be asked to pay more tax on top of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), quite fairly pointed out that in all those very complicated price schedules that the Labour Government maintained under price control, allowance was made for this consideration. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will say that he is willing to make an allowance under the D scheme.
I hope he is not going to try to sidetrack discussion in any way; in fact, I am sure that he will not. But possibly he might tell us that, as a result of the activities of the Ministry of Food, there will not be any outsize people in this country before very long. In that connection, I remember a Question I had to answer from the Front Bench opposite when I was told that the proportion of outsize people had greatly increased under the Labour Government and the production of outsize garments had been increased proportionately. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, who sits beside me, reminds me that under the deflationary policy of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite there may be fewer people of considerable girth.
But even if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) loses weight under this Government, he is not likely to lose height. The problem of height will remain. As my hon.


Friend the Member for Leeds, West pointed out, this problem of outsize garments is not one of weight and height only. There are problems not related to weight or height but to special and detailed and, in many cases, local contours and configurations of personal dimensions. When the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred to physical peculiarities, I do not think he was referring to height or weight, and I believe his right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom misunderstood him.
There are peculiar configurations which involve having garments specially made and having bespoke tailoring. It seems wrong that, because a man's legs are a little long in relation to his body, his arms are short, his waist long, or his hips unusual, he should have to pay not merely more for the materials but more tax as well.
4.15 p.m.
It may be that the Amendment is not considered by the Government to provide the right way of tackling this problem. I think it is probably the best way of doing it and in its detailed drafting it closely follows the relevant Utility Orders. It refers to very odd things like pantaloons and so on. I am not sure in what context they come up. Nevertheless, that was taken from the last Utility Order issued. I think, in March of last year.
If the principle is conceded by the Financial Secretary—and I hope it will be—an obvious difficulty is whether we tackle the problem by a general Amendment to the Clause in this way, providing percentage additions both on outsize and bespoke tailoring, or do it by a whole series of Amendments right through the Schedule, providing separate figures. My own view is that, from the point of view of the simplicity of the Bill, it is best to do it on the lines of this Amendment. This is a very simple Clause and the appropriate percentage of 15 and 30 can be applied by those whose business it is in the trade to apply it to all the figures in Schedule 4.
The Financial Secretary no doubt will give us his views. It may be considered that here, where in fact we are constructing a new tax—because that is what is before the Committee today—wholesalers and retailers should know exactly the appropriate tax figure for every

group of garments and should not be left to do the complicated arithmetic of the kind required even under our Amendment.
It may be the Financial Secretary will convince us that the way we propose is not the right way to do it: but if he accepts the principle, we shall be willing always to consider some other way of doing it. The important thing, which I am sure will be supported by both sides of the Committee and will be widely supported throughout the country, is that the principle be conceded that a man or woman who is larger than his or her neighbour, or who for any reason requires bespoke tailoring, is not doubly penalised by the Treasury requiring an extra tax.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I have no need to declare my interest in this matter. It is visible. I should like to support the Amendment and particularly the remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). It strikes me as very peculiar that at this moment when we have been discussing a health Measure and arguing about how much benefit should be given for various physical disabilities to every member of the public, we do not realise that fatness, in whatever form we find it, and various peculiarities of figure that arise from it are just as much an illness as the other illnesses we discussed under the Health Measure. I happen to be rather widely advertised as the fattest man in this House, and I am rapidly taking steps to try to lose the title; but I may say that as a result of that, I have received a great many letters from people all over the country pointing out the extreme hardship which exists, particularly in working class homes.
This is a matter of which nearly everybody makes a great deal of fun. We know the famous song "Nobody loves a fat girl." I am not applying that to anybody in particular, but I would say to the Treasury that there is no reason, because they do not love a fat girl, for them to proceed to penalise her by making her pay infinitely more for her garments than she need. I believe that that point of view may not have entered into the heads of those normal-minded


and normal-bodied men who control the Treasury at the moment.
They should realise that fatness is an illness. It is often treated as a matter for mirth—girth leads to mirth—but it is really a very serious handicap to everybody concerned. They may not show it, but in due course the extra strain that is put on the whole of the body by fatness—I believe that statistics of insurance companies will bear me out—proves clearly that it is a form of illness. Therefore, why the Treasury, either under this Government or under any other Government, should not seek to alleviate rather than penalise, I find it rather difficult to understand.
In America the matter is handled rather better. When I go to New York, my first port of call is a place called "The Fat Man's Shop." I may say that I go into the boys' department. There are also "The Fatter Man's Shop" and "The Fattest Man's Shop"—this, of course, is under private enterprise—but I have not made the grade in those so far. I believe that the fact that one can go in and get every sort of garment—there is a woman's department, too—after paying prices only very little above the normal, may possibly contain a hint for the garment trade and the salesmanship side of the garment trade, too. Of course, owing to a more generous diet than that to which I am accustomed, I find in the United States that people of great size are more numerous than over here.
However, whatever the cause of the peculiarity of shape and size, there cannot be any possible reason why such people should be penalised in comparison with those who are more fortunate in being normal. I hope, therefore, that this will be regarded as a very serious matter.
This Amendment will not cost the Treasury very much, and I trust that the pleas which have been made by various hon. Members, whether out of understanding and sympathy or because they themselves are sufferers, will have an impact on the Treasury and that we shall hear from the Financial Secretary a sympathetic and reasonable answer, if not agreeing to this particular Amendment, at any rate to some form of words, thus extending to a great many people sympathy which they do not usually enjoy.

Mr. Austen Albu: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) who has been pleading for those who need outsize garments, and I should like to make a plea for those who need special garments.
Not being one of those engaged in the technicalities of the trade, I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), make the distinction between outsize garments and special garments. Those of us who have to wear special garments—garments for those over 6 ft. 3 in. in height or with a sleeve measuring over 24 in. or an inside leg measurement of over 34 in.—have found it is impossible to buy these garments off the peg, whether it be a suit, a pair of sports trousers, flannel trousers, an overcoat or even a mackintosh. The result is that we have always had to go into bespoke tailoring.
My recollection is—this is going into the past now—that in the old days tailors used to make up on the swings what they lost on the roundabouts. I do not believe there was any difference in bespoke tailoring—at least not with the tailors to whom I remember going—between the price a man paid if he was my size or the price that he paid if he happened to be a more normal size. But since the war there has been a considerable difference, and now, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, we are not only having to pay extra for the additional amount of cloth involved in making up a suit, but we also have to pay the increased Purchase Tax on the amount above the D level. Therefore, the change in our economic circumstances is very great indeed compared with what it was before the war.
Some of us who happen to have sleeve lengths exceeding certain normal dimensions find that we cannot even buy shirts "off the peg." I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation apparently supporting me. I am sure he has a good deal of sympathy with my plea, and I hope that he will whisper into his hon. Friend's ear and remind him of some of these things, for we really do need some consideration.
There is another matter in respect of which we are penalised. Those of us who are heavier—and taller people are generally heavier as well—wear out our clothes rather faster. The net effect is


that we are put to a much greater capital expenditure than smaller people are. I should have thought that here is a case which the Financial Secretary might meet out of pure altruism. I cannot quite make out from his appearance whether he is going to meet us or turn down this request, but I hope that the arguments which have been put to him will lead him to give us some sympathy.
This is a pretty serious case, particularly when one bears in mind that before the war those of us who had our clothes made up did not have to pay extra, for the tailors somehow managed to marry the big with the little, while today we are paying extra for the cloth and also in Purchase Tax. I hope that we shall not continue to be put to this additional burden and that the Financial Secretary will accept this Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) will not expect me to follow him in the fascinating avenues which he has opened up concerning the varying rate of depreciation of a suit in accordance with the dimensions of the wearer. But I do, of course, concede that we are here dealing with a serious point which is of some importance to a substantial number of people. It is one for which, quite frankly, the solution is far from easy.
I certainly start with a good deal of sympathy both for the objects of this Amendment and for the considerations which were put forward in the very reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), in moving the Amendment. He laid some weight, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock)—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that only shows the difficulty of the subject. He attributed some importance—if I may so amend my phraseology—to the fact that under the old Utility scheme some valuable arrangements were made. That is clearly a factor which the Committee and the Government must take into account in deciding upon the arrangements to be made under the D scheme.
4.30 p.m.
Of course, it is material to point out that the incentive to have such a provision under the old Utility scheme was considerably stronger than it is under

the present one, for this reason: under the old Utility scheme, if certain arrangements had not been made in the Board of Trade schedules, outsize garments simply would not have been made. There would have been no likelihood of any trader finding it worth while to make them. Under the present proposals of the D scheme, that danger is very considerably diminished. It is simply a question of price adjustment, and it is now open to the trader to fix the price so as to cover the extra cost in which he may be involved because of the extra dimensions of the suit or dress, without the catastrophic consequences which those adjustments would have had under the old scheme.
We are dealing with a somewhat different problem. It is a problem which arises from the fact that those increased prices will involve some degree of increased taxation if the garment concerned—from the cost point of view—comes within the upper half of the output of the industry. This problem does not arise where the outsize garment comes within the lower half of the output—where it is below what is called, in connection with this scheme, the "median point." That has become almost a term of art in discussions on the D scheme. It only arises when a person desires to buy an outsize garment in the upper half of the price range.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the trade have gone very carefully into this subject and find that there are very few such garments which come below the median point? That is really the problem. In the new D scheme, outsize people, whether or not they want to, have to go into the range which is taxable.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman may say that—and anybody who is in the trade and is connected with him or desires to talk to him can suggest that—but it is not in fact the case. I think it was the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) who pointed out that before the war there was no differentiation in price. Nowadays there is some, but it is comparatively small and there is really no reason why the trade, so far as that part of their output which is below the median point is concerned, should not produce comparable outsize garments which retail below it.

Mrs. Braddock: I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what he is saying is that manufacturers can make outsize garments at a price similar to that of the ordinary size. That may be so if they skimp the material and make the styles very ordinary, as they used to do. In the old days an outsize garment was nothing but a cross-over garment, tied in the middle with a belt so that it looked like a sack, and with very little material in the skirt.
It is the alteration in the standard of design and the amount of material put into the garment that has created the situation where an outsize garment cannot be made for the same price as one of an ordinary size. If the design is better, the style has to be better. That is why I said that the manufacturers had greatly improved the style of outsize garments. But to try to keep it at the same level, so that it uses the same amount of material as the ordinary garment, will mean that the outsize garment will be so skimped that we shall go back to the old type, because the manufacturer will have to continue manufacturing that sort of garment in order to get his price.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Lady is on a better point than was her hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds). The effect upon the quality of the garment comes closer to the crux of the problem of manufacturing outsize garments below the median point.
As the hon. Lady has so rightly said, she first drew attention to this problem. I think she will appreciate that the problem is not the same over the whole range of garments, but is more acute in respect of certain garments than of others. I do not think that that really varies the tenor of my argument. I am trying to put the question in proportion. Over a certain range it is still possible to avoid this problem altogether by buying below the median point, where taxation does not operate.
We are really concerned with the problem of the amount of increase for those who buy above the median point. I have taken the trouble to ascertain what it will mean in extra taxation in connection with one or two garments. In the case of women's pyjamas, the difference is 8d. on the tax for large, and 1s. 4d. for very large sizes. In the case of a woman's skirt, retailing at £2 13s. 4d.. there would be 1s. extra tax

in the case of a tall woman and 2s. in the case of a very tall woman.

Miss Bacon: In the figures the hon. Gentleman is quoting, is he merely dealing with the tax or is he taking into account the fact that there is an extra price being paid for these garments which has to be added to the cost price? To get the retail price one has to add one-third of the wholesale price, and then there is a tax on top. I think the figures come to much more than the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I have been doing some arithmetic while the hon. Gentleman has been speaking and I reckon that a woman of normal size, buying a coat at £6 10s., will pay £8 13s. 4d.; but a similar outsize coat, after allowing 15 per cent. extra for the outsize and 15 per cent. charged by the manufacturer, would cost £10 15s.—making an addition of over £2.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Lady and I are so far apart. The figures I am quoting are the only figures that would be affected by this or any similar Amendment dealing with the increase in tax, which itself is a product of the increase in price. Nothing that is proposed in this Amendment, or in the speeches which have been made so far, has suggested that anything can be done in respect of that part of the cost of the garment which is attributable to cost of production or the retailer's profit. It is related solely to the relief of the extra tax, which is a consequence of the extra price.
I do not think the hon. Lady and I are as far apart as I may have led her to think. I should like to quote another figure which relates to the Amendment, in that it relates to men's clothing. In the case of a man's jacket retailing at five guineas, the extra tax is 4s. I give these figures not to suggest that they are negligible—to a number of people they are important—but simply to put the matter in proportion, so that the Committee should be quite clear about the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing.
I want to put the difficulties very frankly to the Committee. If it were desired to deal with this problem either on the lines indicated by the Amendment. or on other lines, the difficulty would be that it is of the essence of the D scheme—as I think the right hon. Gentleman the


Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) appreciates—that it should be as simple as possible and that it should eliminate, so far as is possible, the immense and voluminous complexity of the old Utility schedules. That is necessary not only for its own sake—as a good thing—but because a very large part of the work of operating the D scheme is placed not upon the shoulders of Government Departments—for whom, perhaps, this Committee may not feel undue sympathy —but upon the shoulders of the manufacturers and, perhaps even more, of the wholesalers.
The accepance of a detailed scheme with different D values for the three categories mentioned in the Amendment, of course, quadruples the number of Ds, produces infinitely more elaborate schedules, and would impose, without a shadow of doubt, very serious administrative burdens upon the wholesalers and manufacturers concerned.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, of course, that we on this side of the Committee in opposition are in the same position of difficulty as the hon. Gentleman and his Friends were on the occasion of the last Budget, when they were in opposition. He will appreciate our difficulties of drafting and calculating. However, we have consulted the trade about this matter, and the trade is drawn to it as done in this way, as being simpler. It is very much simpler than the old Utility scheme. We have consulted the trade, and this seems to the trade to be the preferable method, and it would prefer, generally speaking, a method on some percentage basis.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a further point, and it leads me to a further argument to which I was coming. It would increase the burden on the trade. It would not produce quite so complex a jungle as the old Utility scheme—it would take some years to do that, in any event—but it would mean a considerable multiplication, so far as the D figures are concerned.
The hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the trade. As he represents the city he does, I should have been surprised if he had not been. It is a fact that they are, not unnaturally, concerned with some of the administrative burdens which the scheme generally imposes on them, and, therefore, this Committee has, I

think, to consider very seriously whether, in order to relieve the appreciable burden —but not, perhaps, the very vast one—to which I have referred, it is right to impose this additional burden upon them; whether we do risk overloading the machine, so that the scheme does not work. That is really the practical problem to which, I suggest, the Committee should address its mind.
I now come to the specific terms of the Amendment. Before indicating my own views, perhaps I may be allowed to make a comment on them. Of course, it is based, as the hon. Gentleman told us, on the old Utility specification, nmutatis mutandis, not in a very convenient form from the point of view of an instrument of taxation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the percentages. The Amendment relates, not to the dimensions of the garment, in many cases, but to the size of the person who later on in the process is going to wear it. That was previously, under the possibly more rough-and-ready system required for price control, used in Utility specifications.
When we come to using it as an instrument of taxation, there is probably a need for a more precise and clear-cut line of demarcation, because the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a certain margin, in accordance with how well or ill-fitting the garment may be, between the size of garment and the size of the prospective wearer, and that is not a very satisfactory instrument for taxation. That is not an insuperable difficulty—though I think it makes the suggestion in this Amendment unworkable—because I do not think it would be impossible to evolve a scheme in which it was the measurements of the garment, and not of the prospective and future wearer, which were the main consideration.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is now, from his point of view, on slightly dangerous ground. This Amendment was drafted very carefully, and a lot of thought was given to this particular point. I know that there are two ways of doing it by measuring the garment or by measuring the person whom the garment is going to fit. I recall that one of the reasons one of the Utility Schedules was based on the person and not on the garment was, that it was not impossible for certain garments containing a small degree of elasticity easily to be stretched


and to attract a different price level—or in this case, a different tax level.
If he has made inquiries, the hon. Gentleman will know—I may be wrong about the details—that under the B.S.I. specifications for garments, the measurements are based, not on the garment itself, but on the person fitted; it is usually based on the body stripped—in certain appropriate cases wearing a foundation garment. One cannot go into the details: The hon. Gentleman can pursue this matter for himself; but I think—I am speaking from memory—that when we were providing for price control of men's suits and overcoats, the measurement used was that around the waistcoat.
I think that if the hon. Gentleman is going to proceed on the lines he indicates, it would be dangerous, not only from the trade point of view, but from the tax point of view, to base everything on the garment itself, rather than to use the method we suggest. This draft was not carelessly done or taken from a previous draft, but was the result of careful consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I willingly concede that, but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not persuaded me that the dimension of the person who is later on going to wear the garment is a very good yardstick when we come to precise figures of taxation. When we are faced with the fact that all above a certain point will attract a different rate of tax, it is really rather difficult to take that standard. It is a different matter when we discuss it in terms of standards, when we are concerned with Utility specifications; but an instrument of taxation does, perhaps, require more precision. That is one of the difficulties of the Amendment.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is on a good point in the case of garments which can be stretched, but there again, of course, we are up against the difficulty, perhaps, of providing any particular universal formula for all the very wide variety of garments with which we are here concerned, because, as some will stretch to a very considerable degree, others will not without disaster—as some of us with middle age coming upon us are apt to discover. This does illustrate that a straightforward formula like this has its difficulties.
That is the problem as we see it. We have, as I readily concede, a real problem which, if it can be relieved without undue complication and an undue burden upon the wholesalers and manufacturers. we should like to relieve. It is also one for which so far our investigations have not found a satisfactory solution.
What the Government propose to do in the light of the discussion which has taken place today is this. As. I said, the real rub of the thing is the burden that it throws upon the trade, both the wholesalers and the manufacturers, and we feel that it would be wrong, without further investigation, to throw that burden, which, our present information does suggest, would be a very onerous one, upon them; but my right hon. Friend is prepared to enter into discussions with the wholesalers and with the manufacturers with a view to seeing whether a satisfactory solution can now be worked out.
I do not want to mislead the Committee. That is not a firm commitment that it will be possible to do so. It is a commitment, no more and no less, to discuss with those who have to carry out any such decision the means whereby it may be or it may not be possible to carry it out. We are quite prepared to do that and to make all investigations that can be made.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: If, of course, it is satisfactory to the trade, then will it be put into execution? Can we understand that from what the hon. Gentleman has said?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No Government can commit themselves by giving a blank cheque to any trade and say that they will automatically do whatever the trade ask.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I concede that.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that at all.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is clear from what I have said what our general attitude is. We appreciate that this is a real problem and we should like to remedy it if we can. It will be in that spirit that we shall seek to find out whether, notwithstanding the somewhat unsatisfactory results of our previous inquiries—the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, has already pointed out that, at


her request, the Chancellor made some investigations into this matter—a workable. practical scheme, fair and not unduly onerous on the trade, can be worked out and if it can, we shall be very thankful to put it into operation. That will be the spirit in which we will enter any discussions.

Mr. H. Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, there is one request I should like to make to him. We are all indebted to him for the way he has approached this problem, but there is one thing which was not clear to me and other hon. Members.
When talking about the discussions with the trade, he began by saying that he naturally wanted to avoid throwing undue work on the trade. We all sympathise with that point of view, but I hope he will not approach the discussions on the lines of asking the trade, "Is this worth it from your point of view? Do you want to have it, knowing there will be extra work involved?"
Even if there is additional work involved and the scheme is possible, I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to go on with it, because we have to consider not only the trade and the extra work involved, but also the position of the consumer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in these discussions will bear in mind that the issue should not be decided purely in the light of the trade's reaction to the extra work involved, but that the consumers' interests will also be taken into account.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that already given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange, that neither the view of the trade nor of any other agency must be conclusive in this matter. All we desire is their assistance, as being the people who have to work any scheme, in illuminating the problem, on which finally Her Majesty's Government will have to make the decision, and for which they and not the trade are responsible to this House.

Mr. Dodds: If there is such a thing as sympathy in this Committee for a Government speaker, it will be accorded to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has made tremendously heavy water in giving some sort of an undertaking. I

am sure that those who wish to see some form of social justice in this matter cannot but be disturbed by the very limits which have been gone to this afternoon. It was not until my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out that there is a consumer interest that the subject was considered at all. Up to that time it was all the shopkeeper and, the wholesaler.
I have got some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, because it is obvious to those who have gone closely into this D scheme that, although there is an excellent case for dropping the Utility scheme because of the number of items that were in it —it was difficult for the ordinary shopkeeper to follow them—there is no excuse for the Government having gone to the other extreme. It is obvious that the survey was carried through by the Central Office of Information, and the evidence indicates that too much notice was taken of the bazaar stores that sell the small, skimpy garments. How can any Government justify the imposition of a tax purely and simply on the dimensions of the citizen? These people appreciate that if there is more cloth used there is a case for charging more, but this is a new departure in fiscal policy, and it needs more justification than has been advanced up to the present.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said that there had not been a champion of the men in the House. It happens, however, that I got in even before my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who has put up such a wonderful fight for the women, because on the same day that the President of the Board of Trade announced his scheme I made a protest on behalf of those men who were outsizes. It is evident that very little thought has been given to the scheme. It can be described as the product of a bureaucratic mind with a passion for tidiness without the slightest thought of the sociological effect. The Financial Secretary tried to justify the scheme by stating that there was only a small increase in tax, but what about the principle involved in it? Why should an individual be taxed on his or her dimensions? It has never been done before. We must be very careful it is not started now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, and I put a general


Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th March, and in his answer he said:
I fear that the suggestion that there should. be separate D allowances for outsize garments and those of especial dimensions would unduly expand the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 26.]
Of course it would expand, but nothing to the extent of the Utility scheme. I speak here with the benefit of advice from the Co-operative movement in the working of this new scheme. They are not opposed to what is in the Amendment. They are selling to 10 million members, and they consider that there must be a question of sociological justice.
The Financial Secretary has a very bad brief. He said that the outsizes could get something within the non-taxable range. But that is not true. Take men's vests, class B at 4s. Where are the outsizes to get anything in that range? The same applies to ladies' nightdresses at 15s., where all are lumped in one class. Where will outsized women get those articles without tax? It is the same with item after item, and probably we shall refer to some of the individual items later on.
In view of what has taken place recently on this subject, the result is bitterly disappointing. We understood the Chancellor was having second thoughts; he said that he was particularly sympathetic. If this Government cannot find a solution to this problem, which is relatively simple compared with the problems they have got to face, then heaven help the people of this country.

Mr. Burden: I would ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to realise that this is a matter of great urgency and a decision should be taken very quickly. While this is hanging over the trade little business will be done, and there will be nothing to help with the present difficulties in the textile trade. For these reasons, I hope, that the matter can be treated as one of great urgency.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very ready to give that assurance. I am very conscious of the fact that in all these Purchase Tax matters speedy certainty is of great value, to both the trade and all concerned in it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman has given way a little under such pressure, as has been brought to bear upon him. Every speech, from both sides of the Committee, has been in favour of some allowance being made for the outsizes and the special sizes. This has been an interesting debate, certainly from the physical point of view. Sitting here, watching the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), in happy juxtaposition, engaging in a common wheedle before the Financial Secretary, I think it is not surprising that they succeeded to some extent.
I must say, though, that I agree that the Financial Secretary did make rather heavy weather in some of his observations. Let me just deal with one or two of his points to which we cannot attach the same weight as he seemed to attach. He said that no outsizes would have been made under the Utlility scheme unless there were an allowance. In any event, that is no consolation to the consumer, and we are dealing primarily with the consumer. What we are concerned about is that the outsize consumer should have justice.

Mr. Dodds: A square deal.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: A square deal, or a round deal, or whatever you like to call it, but that he should have justice.
The second point which I found some difficulty in following was when the Financial Secretary said it was easier to keep under the D line than within the Utility scheme. Let him imagine that there was no outsize provision in Utility, and no special outsize provision under the D scheme. It would be no easier to keep under the D line than to keep within the Utility scheme. I must say, speaking for myself, I failed to follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning on that point.
Then he said, "Well, really there is very little in it. There is a comparatively small amount involved."If there is a small amount involved, I hope that means there will be even more ready to make a concession which is costing comparatively little.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to make that clear, as perhaps I did not make it clear in reply to an earlier


speech. The financial considerations of this matter are negligible. There is no difficulty over that. The difficulties are administrative, and administrative outside the Government service.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am obliged for that interruption, because that brings me to the form in which the allowance should be made. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) indicated, we were ourselves anxious to avoid an enormous number of different calculations, and it was for that reason that we adopted what my right hon. Friend called—I am not sure that I should entirely agree with him—this very simple Clause. It is at any rate simple to this extent. It provides for a 15 per cent. allowance in the case of bespoke tailoring and a 30 per cent. allowance in the case of bespoke tailoring where there is also an outsize or a special measurement involved.
I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), am advised that there really is no difficulty. My hon. Friend, who has consulted the trade, has said that there is Do difficulty in applying a scheme of this kind, where there is just a straight percentage calculation, and at the moment we on this side of the Committee are in difficulty in appreciating what the difficulties of the trade can be in dealing with an allowance worked out by the percentage system contained in this Clause.
We are all very pleased to hear of the attitude of the hon. Gentleman and of the Chancellor. We take it that, as he stated, there is no difficulty at all from the financial point of view; that it is purely an administrative matter, and that he will consult with the trade. I should like to ask whether it will be possible for him to have his consultations with the trade and to inform the Committee of the position before we reach the Report stage. If that were possible it would ease the position considerably.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot, I am afraid, give any assurance as to that, for this reason. The matter, is, in our view, a complicated one. The working out of a feasible scheme, though we are at least as anxious as the hon. and learned Gentleman that it should be speedy, may not necessarily be possible of achievement before the Report stage. The hon. And

learned Gentleman is, of course, aware, that that would not be an insuperable objection to action being taken before next year, because there is provision in the Bill under which action could be taken.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
There is one thing which I should like finally to press upon him. The primary consideration should be justice to the consumer and not really a question of administrative convenience here or there. I agree that it is to some extent a question of balancing. At any rate, we have sufficient indication of the working of the Utility scheme in practice, and we have here a much simpler proposal than what is in the Utility scheme, so it is extremely difficult for us to appreciate why the scheme we propose, the percentage scheme, should not meet any reasonable objection that the trade could have. Our information is that it would meet any objection of that kind.

Mr. Pannell: If the Financial Secretary cannot give us any undertaking to deal with this by the Report stage, it is reasonable, in view of the fact that he says the difficulty is purely administrative, and that the financial consideration is negligible, that he should tell us on the Report stage where he has got to by then.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I might assist the hon. Gentleman. Subject to the rules of order, it would, of course, always be possible to put down a Question at any time.

Mr. Pannell: That is quite true, but he need not be quite so flippant about it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was not being flippant.

Mr. Pannell: We are dealing with a serious Amendment and trying to make progress. I am not speaking about the odd Parliamentary Question that is put down. I am speaking about, let us say, agreement between the Government and the Opposition. We say we are satisfied with the Government's good faith on this matter, and if he tells us—and this is, after all, common practice in the House of Commons—that because of the time he cannot give us any undertaking by the Report stage, I think it reasonable to ask him to tell us at the Report stage where


he has got to. I do not want to be fobbed off by being told I have to put down a Question. I am not the most awkward person in the House; neither do I waste time at Question time in seeking information which is quite superfluous. We shall expect to get some sort of answer on the Report stage, and it is on those sorts of terms that we should ask leave to withdraw our Amendment.
The trade wants something to replace the allowance given in the old Utility scheme. What is worrying the trade at present is not the little bit of extra bookkeeping they will have to do, but the question of their sales. Sales are dropping; the difficulty in the retail trade at the moment is the indecision, and the trade are concerned about this. I may be wrong, but when the hon. Gentleman spoke about his consultations with the trade he gave me the impression that he was thinking more in terms of the wholesale trade. I would point out that this is a matter for the retail trade and not the wholesale trade. This is something that takes place in the Co-ops and in other shops, and not so much at the wholesale level.
If the hon. Gentleman looks through the schedules and sees the allowances that are made in men's and boy's wear throughout the whole range, he will see that to the inquiring layman they seem to be far more difficult than the simple percentage scheme which we suggest. I have consulted the retail trade on this, and I can assure him that they see none of the objections he sees.
The Minister suggested that as I represent a Leeds constituency I might seek information there, but I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds (North-East (Miss Bacon) did go to Leeds for her information. I have also made inquiries in London, and I am assured that this would be the sort of system which would appeal to the trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who was former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, was amazed at the heavy weather the Treasury were making of this.
We shall withdraw the Amendment because we feel sure that it is the Government's desire to meet this matter in justice and equity, and we shall ask the

Minister on Report Stage where the Government have got to in considering this matter, in the hope that he will then be in a position to accede to our request. I beg, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan): I propose to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), in page 10, line 5, leave out "Treasury,"and insert "Board of Trade,"a similar Amendment in page 10, line 14, and also the Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member, in page 10, line 8, at end, insert:
so however that where the effect of any such order is to increase the tax chargeable in respect of any articles, such order shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury.

Mr. Albu: On a point of order. Do I understand, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, that you are not calling the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and myself?

The Temporary Chairman: That is so; it has not been selected.

Mr. F. J. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale): I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, to leave out "Treasury," and to insert "Board of Trade."
The purpose of this and the other two Amendments in my name is to restore to the Board of Trade the powers which they always had under the old price control orders of the Utility scheme. The Clause. as amended, would give all the necessary powers to the Treasury. I quite recognise that in the past the Treasury have always had power to decide the rate of the tax on articles and to arrange for the collection of the tax on goods covered by the Purchase Tax scheme, but under the old Utility scheme it was administered by the Board of Trade, as also were the various price control orders which went with the Utility scheme.
The Board of Trade were primarily concerned with securing the flexibility of the scheme so that it would suit the best interests of the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the consumers. A number of people fear, as I do myself, that the passing over of entire control to the Treasury means that there will be introduced into


the operation of the D scheme that type of rigidity, particularly in details, which could be so harmful to the manufacturers and distributors of articles made within the D scheme.
The Amendment would make it possible for the Board of Trade to make small changes in the description of articles and specifications where appropriate, which would have the effect of perhaps reducing the tax here and there by a small amount or of rearranging it, while reserving to the Treasury the sole power to increase the rate of tax as a result of any changes. In this way, the Treasury would not lose any of its powers to fix the level of tax, and it would also retain all its powers with regard to tax collection.
The Amendment would restore to the Board of Trade and to the experienced and skilled clerks of the Board of Trade, who understand the complexity of this tax, the power to make such alterations as are bound to be required from day to day in the course of the movement of commerce in all parts of the country. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way to accept the Amendment, which will enable manufacturers to deal in the future with the same Department and, very largely, with the same officials as they have done in the past, and thus maintain a continuity which is wholly desirable at the present time in the administration of this complicated tax.

5.15 p.m.

H. Rhodes: I should like to express my opinion on this Amendment. It really does not make sense. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) had his opportunity last Thursday night to do all that was necessary in this matter by voting with us on this side of the Committee about Purchase Tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "I shall explain that in a minute. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, what would happen? We should have two operations. In the first instance, the Treasury would want to know how much revenue would be going to the Board of Trade, and saying, "Will you do the administration of this revenue business for us," and the Board of Trade would then express an opinion back to the Treasury, and we should arrive at the same place. In point of fact, I think

that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is to get rid of the whole thing.
The control which the Treasury has on the Board of Trade now is not healthy for the industry of this country. I suggested that at the time of the Budget, and I stick to my opinion. There is no flexibility, and it is a waste of time to expect the Board of Trade to go to the Treasury every time there is a question of difference in taxation.
There is an old history about this matter. The Douglas Committee, on page 61 of their Report, say:
Many developments in the Utility schemes which were required to adjust them to changing conditions or to meet new needs were checked because the loss of revenue which would have been involved could not be accepted …"—
It was a revenue consideration:
Each extension had, of course, its impact on revenue, and this, we understand, was a major cause of the doubling of the rates of Purchase Tax on non-Utility textiles in 1947–48. We have gained the impression that both the Board of Trade and the Customs are concerned at the difficulties created by the fact that anon-revenue Department is largely responsible for administering a very important fiscal concession.
So there was that turn between the Board of Trade and the Treasury on this question as to who conceded what.
Under the original scheme it was very necessary for the Board of Trade to administer price control at the production end. So long as it is nothing but a revenue raising device by the Treasury, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale that the Treasury should be pushed out of the picture altogether by the removal of the tax. So long as this tax continues, so will the Treasury dominate the Board of Trade.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has made a large part of my speech for me, I think, as a former Board of Trade Minister and a very handsome one at that.
The point on which he fails is that we are here concerned with the raising of taxation. I will not enter into the wider and more controversial topics that may arise on this, beyond saying that, whatever the functions of the Treasury, the fundamental and basic one is the raising of taxes. This is a matter of taxes and of the administration of an


important part of the national revenue. I must also call in aid, as did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), the very clear comments which were made in the Report of the Douglas Committee as to the unfortunate developments that follow once that clear line of principle is abandoned.
I can assure my hon. Friend that on all the economic aspects of taxation and all the effects upon the trade which the imposition of this kind of taxation involves there is day to day consultation and the views of the Board of Trade are always available to us, but, ultimately, when it comes to the levying of taxation and to the accepting of the responsibility to this House for taxation, that is a function of the Treasury. For those reasons it is not possible for me to agree to my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Frederick Lee(Newton): The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Rhodes) for having intervened in the debate. He is the only hon. Member who has had any connection at all with the Board of Trade who has intervened in the debate. It is a most remarkable thing that for two hours we have been discussing Board of Trade matters with nobody from the Board of Trade on the Government Front Bench. I should have thought that we could have expected something better than that from a Government of co-ordinators.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has touched on a serious point. I appreciate that the Financial Secretary is right when he tells us that the Treasury must have control of taxation, but I should have thought that in the position in which we now find ourselves, in which great changes happen in a short time, in which a deflationary situation can arise in one part of the country in a short time, instead of regarding the sale of commodities as something which, in the last analysis, we want to do because we want to levy taxation, the Board of Trade should be brought more into the matter.
If the present recession in the textile trade is to be overcome, the Treasury is the last Department which should be dealing with it. The primary object of the Treasury, as the Financial Secretary said, is to levy taxes. There is something

far more important than that once we have unemployment in an industry and sales are lagging. I hope the Chancellor will see that he has the most effective liaison with the Board of Trade so that once the danger line for a commodity is reached, and the sale of the commodity is lagging because of the height of taxation, instant action can be taken.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can very easily re-assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). There is the very closest connection on these matters, particularly on just the sort of situation to which he has referred. I feel that the Committee need not be disturbed about that.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering): I have been looking round the Chamber, and there seems to be a singular dearth of Scottish hon. Members except in the Chair, Colonel Gomme-Duncan. In those circumstances, I rise to express the hope that in one matter the Treasury will not merely take the views of the Board of Trade but will also take the views of that inscrutable figure, the Secretary of State for Scotland, for it appears from the Schedules that the ignorance of the Board of Trade about the price and the nature of a kilt surpasses belief.

Mr. Erroll: From the nature of my hon. Friend's reply, I fear that there will be considerable staff duplication. He referred quite cheerfully to the fact that the Treasury will consult the Board of Trade when needed, which means that the Board of Trade will have to keep on all its officials who have been dealing with the scheme and the Treasury will have to build up a duplicate staff of officials to deal with the D scheme. Thus it looks as if we shall see a certain measure of staff duplication instead of reduction, and I am sorry that that should be the case in view of what we have said about the need to reduce staffs in Government Departments.
However, it may be that our fears are ill-founded, and it may be that the Treasury officials will be as alert as the Board of Trade officials have been. Perhaps we can leave the matter until next year, and perhaps my hon. Friend will give us an assurance that he will allow us to re-open the matter next year if the Treasury prove to be restrictive and obstructive.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): This is a very important subject and I rise to say that there is no danger of duplication of staff. There is, if anything, a likelihood of a reduction of staff owing to the many specifications of the Utility scheme having been simplified. In the case of the Department administering this, the Customs and Excise, I do not anticipate that the administration of the D scheme will add to the staff. They are always very hard worked, but I do not imagine that this will result in an increase in staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has suggested that he might raise the subject next year. I will go even further and say that for the next five years of the life of Her Majesty's present Administration he has my proud encouragement to raise the matter. I hope that the Committee will now be able to make some progress and proceed to the Schedules, which are of such importance to the D scheme.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I should not have intervened if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not spoken so vividly of the next five years. As my hon. Friends and I may be concerned with the matter from the other side long before then I think it is only fair that I should give the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) the necessary reassurance by saying that we shall be quite willing to listen, from the other side of the Committee, to what he has to say when he is again on this side of the Committee.
I must also add that he will probably receive the same answer as he has done today, because I happen to find myself in agreement, not perhaps surprisingly, with the Chancellor on the point that the Treasury are the best people, through the Customs and Excise Department, to administer taxation. I would add that the Treasury are just as interested in proposals which involve a loss of revenue as they are in proposals which involve an increase in revenue.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: In view of the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), has given should such a tragedy happen that he finds himself sitting on this side within the next five years, has he an assurance from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that he will be in a position to answer my hon. Friend?

Mr. Erroll: In view of the assurances which I have had from both sides of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Albu: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, at the end, to insert:
subject to the substitution in that subsection for the words cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period' the words ' not come into effect for a period of six months and until'.
Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1948, gives the Treasury power to change the classes of goods which are chargeable to Purchase Tax and to change the rates at which they are chargeable and also to change the articles within certain classes and groups. They can do this by means of an affirmative Order which must be approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons within 28 days.
I am not very keen—I do not know if many hon. Members are—on the alteration of taxation by means of Statutory Orders, but the purpose of the Amendment is to deal with certain classes of goods, and, although it may appear to be rather widely drawn, I want to direct the attention of the Committee to certain dangers which will exist if the subsection goes through in its present form.
5.30 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a period of six months shall elapse before such an Order changing a class of goods or adding a new class of goods to the Purchase Tax schedules can come into effect. I particularly want to draw the attention of the Committee to the effect of the Bill as it stands on the furniture industry. The Committee have already decided not to remove from the powers in the Bill the power to impose a D scheme on the furniture industry, and the Financial Secretary, speaking in the debate on Thursday, said it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a scheme without full discussions with the trade and that it was not intended to hurry the industry in the discussions which they are having at present on this matter with the President of the Board of Trade.
It is generally admitted that any scheme of this sort, in an industry such as furniture, will be one of great complexity and


that it will take at least 12 months before any such scheme can be worked out. That was the reason why we tried, last Thursday, to remove from the Bill power to take such action at all. We were not successful, however, but it is, nevertheless, very important that there should not be over-hasty action in this matter, even after the time at which there appears to be some agreement between the President of the Board of Trade and the industry.
Some of us have a suspicion that in this matter the Treasury may want to go faster, not only than the industry but also than the President of the Board of Trade and his officials, and we want to be absolutely certain that, before such a drastic change is introduced into the whole conditions of the industry, there shall have been the fullest discussion and the fullest opportunity for consideration, not only behind closed doors but also out in the open air, in public.
There is general agreement that it is necessary to provide an alternative form of specifying standards of quality for the furniture industry, and one which is least restrictive in design. That, of course, is the reason why the Government have not introduced a D scheme immediately for the industry but are continuing discussions with the trade.
As was pointed out in previous discussions, when we were discussing the question of the relief of Purchase Tax on outsize garments, it is not only the trade which is concerned in this matter; there is also the consumer's interest. There is a serious danger that if a scheme were introduced by a mere change of the Order, operating within 21 days and perhaps very greatly increasing the prices and also removing the quality standards from the consumer, that would create very great hardship indeed.
Another point I want to put to the Financial Secretary is that the mass production part of the furniture industry, who are concerned with the present Utility scheme, are set up to manufacture furniture under the existing scheme, and they might have to make considerable changes in design and in manufacturing layout if the present scheme were drastically altered. period of six

months, far from causing uncertainty in the trade, would, in fact, give them time to make those changes, to bring out new designs, and to make the necessary adjustments in their production lines and methods of manufacture to deal with the new specifications and, of course, to deal with the radical change in the market which might take place following the introduction of these new tax schedules.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary that it is almost impossible to introduce a D scheme into the present manufacturing arrangements of the trade without causing very great hardship to the consuming public. Once a scheme has been worked out, then if we are to be sure and to satisfy our constituents, and if the consumer as well as the trade is to be absolutely certain that no mistakes are being made, we need a period during which the scheme can be discussed and during which we can look for the snags.
I do not believe that discussions taking place behind closed doors, and the consequent laying of an Order to be approved by this House within 21 days, gives an adequate safeguard that there will not be very serious hardships indeed. I therefore suggest to the Financial Secretary that he should accept this Amendment if he is sincere when he says that he does not intend to introduce a scheme of this sort in too great a hurry and without adequate discussion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), if I understood him aright, as I believe I did, put his argument for the Amendment solely on the ground of what might happen to the furniture industry. I understand his anxiety in connection with this important industry, but the Amendment, of course, goes far wider than that. It would impose this six months' period in the case of all Orders made under the D scheme, and for that reason alone it cannot be dealt with solely on the basis of whatever steps it may be necessary to take in connection with the furniture industry.
Perhaps I may begin by saying a word or two on the furniture aspect of the matter. The hon. Gentleman quoted, according to my recollection completely accurately, what I said last Thursday—


that discussions are taking place and that there is no intention to hurry them unduly. Of course, it will only be when the discussions have concluded that the question of laying an Order will arise, because until they are concluded we shall not know the contents of the Order.
So far as that Order is concerned, therefore, this Amendment would not provide any protection for the length of the discussions but would simply provide a period of delay after they had concluded; and although I must not be taken to prejudge what length of time may be necessary between the end of the discussions and the coming into force of the Order—that is no doubt a factor which will have to be considered in the discussions themselves—nonetheless, I think it would be a little arbitrary to say that in all circumstances there must be a further period of six months before any of the schemes can come into effect. That would unduly tie our hands because, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said during the discussion of several previous Amendments, it is uncertainty and delay which do so much harm in these matters.
The Amendment cannot be based solely on the case of furniture, because it goes far wider than that. It would affect Orders in which the D line might be varied throughout the D scheme. It goes extremely wide. It would impose a freeze of six months during which no alteration could be made. That would create a quite impossible situation. If a change were to be made in one direction, the direction of a fall in taxation, the Amendment would tend to freeze trade for that period while buyers waited for the Order to come into effect. If, on the other hand, it were an order which would have the effect of raising taxation, then the Amendment would simply ask for forestalling of the Order on a very large scale, to the detriment both of the Revenue and of the simple running of the trade.
I appreciate the anxiety which the hon. Gentleman very properly expressed lest Orders of this kind be made with insufficient time to enable manufacturers to adjust their processes and to make their preparations, but I can tell him that we have, and shall have, that fact very much in mind in making these Orders. It would be quite a different thing, however, to say that no change

could be made by Order without this sterile period of six months during which the Order could not come into effect.
Let us consider what would happen in the case of a rise in prices. If prices were to rise sharply in respect of one commodity, the D factor, instead of being at the median point, might find itself right down at the bottom of the scale. There would be nothing the Government could do to remedy that, and to prevent consumers of the cheapest goods of the whole lot from having to pay tax under the D scheme, contrary to the spirit of the scheme and to the wishes of the House. We should have quite an impossible situation.
With his experience, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that under Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1948, the period of 28 days, and so on, during which the Motion for an affirmative Resolution has to be carried, is farily generally used for taxation proposals of this kind. It has been the practice to use it under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and under the Ottawa Agreements Act of the same year, and it is the one generally used for regulating Purchase Tax rates under the Finance Act, 1948. It has generally been found to be a not inconvenient procedure. It would certainly be deprived of the major part of its value if it were to have added to it for this particular purpose the very long gap of six months.
I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although the Government understand the anxieties which prompted him to bring the Amend-men forward, it would be to introduce very serious difficulties in the operation of the scheme if we were to accept a very long freeze of this kind.

Mr. Rhodes: In his analysis of the position the Financial Secretary has asked us to consider the example of prices going up. Surely the greater necessity is to be able to maintain the D value when prices are going down. Then the D value would have to follow, or the amount of goods coming down below the D factor would be more than the Treasury could afford.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true, but I was dealing with the position of the consumer. It is the fact that the D is being used at the median point to enable consumers in the lower half of the price range to get tax free goods. In the event


of a rise in prices it might well become the case that there would be no tax-free goods in that range. It is true that the converse affects revenue, but that is another question.

Mr. Rhodes: I was speaking of the consumer, too. The Financial Secretary has already said that the Government's only consideration in this matter is revenue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I did not.

Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes, definitely. I was pointing out that the real reason why the Treasury want to maintain these provisions as they are is so that they can make a speedy alteration in the event of prices going down, as, of course, the hon. Gentleman's party hope they will.

5.45 p.m.

(Mr. Douglas Jay: (I agree with the Financial Secretary that the Amendment, as it stands—which happened to be the one selected, if I may put it that way—would affect other goods besides furniture. If he could undertake to devise before the Report stage a different type of Amendment which would give us what we want relating to furniture only, we would be very glad to encourage him to do so.
The Government seem to be trying to rush ahead too hastily in applying the D scheme to furniture and the Purchase Tax to a much wider extent. They are asking the Committee to give them power to carry out this big change before it has been shown to be either desirable or possible to apply the D scheme to furniture. In our view it would be much better for the Government to convince us that the change was desirable and possible, and, having done so, to ask us for the necessary powers. In point of fact, they are doing just the reverse.
I am surprised that the Financial Secretary is so very unwilling to make any concession on this point, since in other matters he has shown himself willing to listen to the Committee. I concede that some of the things have so far been rather small. I have listened to all the debates on furniture in the Committee, and it still seems to me that no real case has yet been made out for the proposed change or for giving the Government these powers. It is admitted by both sides of the Committee and by the Douglas Report that

the Utility scheme was effective and useful in the case of furniture and was a reasonable guarantee of quality. Under the existing situation something like 90 per cent. of most types of furniture are tax free.
Why are we being asked, therefore, to hurry on and make this change? What is the case so far made out for applying the D scheme to furniture as well as to textiles? Since we had the debate on furniture last week the Chancellor made a general speech about the D scheme which, naturally, related to furniture as well as to other things coming under it. He based his whole case for the D scheme on the contention that we were in default on our international obligations and that we were unable by the existing system to apply tax exemption to imported goods. He explained the difficulty about imported goods and said that it was
necessary to adjust the general scheme of Utility under the Purchase Tax and the imposition of Purchase Tax as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 702.]
We have it on the authority of the Douglas Report that the argument about international obligations does not apply to furniture at all. The Douglas Report pointed out that a system of applying the Utility mark to imported goods was not merely workable but had been for some time working quite satisfactorily in the case of furniture products. Therefore the Chancellor's answer, on his own showing, is completely irrelevant to the furniture industry. In those circumstances it still seems unreasonable to us that, without having heard the case and held consultations with the industry which would have demonstrated whether some different scheme was or was not possible, the Government should want us to hurry on in giving them powers to extend Purchase Tax and end the Utility scheme with no more than a brief debate upon an affirmative Resolution.
We are disappointed that the Government are not willing to be rather more reasonable about this matter and to give us; rather longer time to deal with it. The Amendment is not one to be pressed, because it would not achieve exactly what we wish, but I still hope that the Minister will give some thought between now and Report stage to devising a method by which rather longer time can be given to the House before this change is made.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Albu: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not been able to give us any real assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce some sort of scheme in regard to furniture in much too short a time. What they do not realise is the very great change it will make to the consumer. I think we have said enough on this Amendment to make the Financial Secretary understand the seriousness of the matter for the furniture industry. In view of what he said about the general effect of the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 11, line 18, leave out "it," insert "they."—[Mr.
Boyd-Carpenter.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Eirene White: Before the Committee agrees to this Clause, we should have a little more indication from the Financial Secretary of the way in which he regards this method of dealing with the Douglas Committee proposals. It is important that we should be agreed upon the general method by which these Schedules have been evolved. Naturally, we do not want to discuss the details at this stage but, after having listened to the manner in which the Financial Secretary replied to the discussion on the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend dealing with outsize and bespoke materials, I have some apprehensions.
It seemed to me that the mind of the Financial Secretary, if not entirely closed, is almost closed to possible changes in dealing with this matter. As the Douglas Committee pointed out, it is important that we should, if possible, have this scheme working satisfactorily from the start, because it would be unfortunate if we found, having started the scheme, that there were objections to it and that alterations had to be made in it. That would bring an element of uncertainty into the trade which we all want to avoid.
There are two methods in the Schedules by which the rate of tax is to be decided. The first is the description of the garment or article. The second is the material

out of which it is made. I was disturbed to find that the Financial Secretary seemed to consider that distinctions between garments on account of their size would be so complicated that he could not feel an alteration should be made in the Schedules on that account. Yet that seems to me to be fundamental, because we are trying to avoid the complexities of the Utility scheme with its wide range of specifications of quality and method of manufacture.
For example, under the Utility scheme there were 781 specifications for men's shirts. We do not want anything approaching that number of D scheme specifications, but is it really satisfactory to have only one for a shirt of which there are such a wide variety of types? There are long sleeved shirts, short sleeved shirts, sports shirts, dress shirts and so forth. There is not even a differentiation on account of the material out of which they are made.
Similarly, there were 405 specifications for women's domestic overalls under the Utility scheme. Again one does not wish to have hundreds of specifications, but is it really sensible, wise or just to have only one? The article concerned may be a little bit of decorative muslin and lace as worn in high class restaurants, with little protective value, or the much more voluminous garment which a nurse has to wear for her hospital work.
Again, other garments are grouped together such as waistcoats, cardigans, jerseys, sweaters, pullovers, slip-overs and bedjackets. These are all to be together as though only one garment were involved. Yet these also are short-sleeved, without sleeves, long-sleeved and so forth.
As a matter of general principle these schedules which we are agreeing in this Clause have been drawn up in such a way as indeed to avoid the complexities of the Utility scheme, but they lead to all kinds of other difficulties. Speaking from the consumer's point of view, there is likely to be considerable dissatisfaction when it is discovered how the scheme works, because those who have drawn it up have gone to the other extreme; having had far too complicated a Utility scheme in its later stages, they have decided on the simplest possible D scheme. I cannot help feeling that it will lead us into further difficulties unless we consider it carefully.


I have mentioned the grouping of garments. There is the question of the materials from which they are made. The Committee suggested that only two broad distinctions should be made, those which were made out of a specified percentage of wool and those which were not. In certain circumstances they give some special level for linen garments. They suggest that it is not possible to mix a certain quantity of wool with other materials in order to qualify for the other tax, but I am told that in practice that is already being done to the detriment of the quality of the material. There is also the question of whether silk and nylon should be separately recognised. I do not feel strongly about that because neither of those materials entered into the Utility scheme, but from the trade point of view there may be something to be argued on that.
On the other general consideration, the question of sizes, the difficulty of the Utility scheme was that in order to meet quality specifications there had to be a complex series of Orders, but I cannot see that the same objection applies to size. Where definite measurements can be taken, where garments are normally sold according to definite sizes which are well understood throughout the trade and by the customers, I cannot see why the Financial Secretary should have indicated earlier that he was not prepared to consider variations according to the sizes of the garments concerned.
If he is not prepared to do that on suitable occasions, we shall have precisely what the Douglas Committee suggested we should attempt to avoid, incentives either to distort production or to manufacture far more of certain ranges, leaving people who need the other ranges far less well supplied than otherwise they would be. I hope, therefore, that before we come to the detailed discussion of the Schedules the Financial Secretary will indicate that he is prepared to agree that these Schedules have been drawn in an over-simplified way, and that he has a reasonably open mind on the matters to which I have drawn attention.

Mr. Burden: I want to refer to the position of the apparel industry generally. There has been a lot of discussion recently in the House regarding the position of the Lancashire textile industry, and I feel it has gone out that this area is the

only one which has been badly hit. Yet there springs readily to mind the situation in Yorkshire, the West of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, such as Peebles and Galashiels. There has also been much talk of the benefit to the trade by the removal of the Purchase Tax from textiles only. I believe it is questionable at this stage whether the removal of Purchase Tax from textiles sold over the counter would help the trade considerably.

Mr. Pannell: Would the hon. Gentleman call attention to the fact that the Ulster Members are not in their places? The very people who were enthusiastic when there were publicised debates on this subject are conspicuous by their absence from the Committee stage of the Finance Bill when the real work is being done.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that certain hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies have already expressed themselves forcefully on this subject. In my view, the recession is not so much due to sales of textiles over the counter having fallen off as to the fact that many of the ancillary trades are not in full production. The light clothing industry, for instance, which manufactures clothing for men and women—for men to a lesser degree, and in the case of ladies' garments manufactures practically everything except coats and costumes—comprises about 1,700 firms and employs 130,000 workers. In March of this year, there were 12,000 persons unemployed in that branch of the clothing industry, and that figure has since risen. There was also at that time, and still is, a considerable amount of under-employment.
6.0 p.m.
This branch of the trade employs mostly the textiles from Lancashire, and 70 per cent. of the non-wool cloth that is now made is used in the home trade. That branch of the industry absorbs about 30 per cent. of that class of non-wool textile. The apparel industries generally, which include those making outer garments for men and women, comprise about 6,000 firms of 10 or more operatives, and 25,000 concerns with fewer than 10 operatives. It includes the small tailor and workrooms in the big stores, and also includes a number of firms manufacturing footwear.
In December, 1950, 655,000 persons were employed in that trade. There are now 611,000, a drop of 44,000. Hon. Members should note that in 1951 the average employment figure for those industries had dropped from 655,000 to 638,000, which makes it perfectly clear that when hon. Members opposite were in office they should have realised that this recession was coming on the trade. Then was the time to start thinking, when they had the responsibility for looking into the future, and to decide what measures should be taken to prevent the crisis arising. But no such steps were taken. In March, 1950—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If it were the case, as the hon. Member says, that there were symptoms in those days that ought to have been seen and something ought to have been done about them, is it not a fortiori the case that something ought to be done about it now?

Mr. Burden: Certainly, and we hope that something will be done about it. But hon. Members opposite have done everything possible to imply that it is the fault of this Government that these circumstances have arisen—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Well, is it not?
Mr. Burden: —whereas they know perfectly well that that is untrue and that they themselves ran away from the situation. There were 373,000 workpeople employed in tailoring generally. Added to the 130,000 in the light clothing industry, that makes a total of about half a million. The importance of this to the textile industry generally should be perfectly clear.
Seventy per cent. of the home production of non-wool textiles was used by the trade in manufacturing in this country. For woollen textiles, the proportion was even higher at 74 per cent. The recession in Lancashire and elsewhere is as much due—in fact, more due—to the recession in the clothing trade as to the purchase of textiles over the counter. A great many areas have been suffering as a result. The clothing trade in London, Manchester, North-West England,
Nottingham—

The Chairman: How does the hon. Member relate these remarks to the

Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part?

Mr. Burden: I was relating the position in regard to the apparel industry, which is suffering very considerable unemployment at this stage, and I was going to suggest the ameliorative measures that might be taken to improve their position and also the position of the textile industries generally.

The Chairman: Whatever the ameliorative position may be, we cannot alter the Clause. It is only the Clause, as amended, that we can discuss now.

Mr. Burden: I hope, Sir Charles, that I may make this point. We realise that in the Clause there is a question of certain measures being taken to ease the position in the clothing industry by making concessions in regard to outsize merchandise. I sincerely hope that, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said, those steps will be taken. I hope, however, that when he makes his investigations, my hon. Friend will realise generally that concessions are needed in order to try to stimulate the flow of clothing and of materials, so that not only can we help the industry, but that revenue can continue to be raised by easing the flow of goods through the pipeline and to the consumer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in her very agreeable speech, made a rather unusual criticism of the Clause when she suggested that it might have undue simplicity. That is a rather refreshing criticism compared with those to which Clauses generally are subjected.
I realise, however, that there was a serious point in the hon. Lady's argument as to whether or not we had sacrificed equity to the consumer in favour of simplicity. It is always a very difficult question to find the precise point where the considerations balance, but certainly what the hon. Lady has said will be borne in mind when we come to the discussions on the Schedules, where, of course, the precise provisions are contained.
Perhaps I might say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), whose natural concern for the industry the Committee, I am sure, understand, that perhaps it might be more convenient to discuss the precise provisions with


which he is interested when we come to the Schedules, which is where those provisions appear in the Bill. We could discuss them more profitably then than in a kind of general discussion on the Motion that the Clause stand part. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to wait until we reach that stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(GIVING OF INVOICES, AND TAKING OF SAMPLES.)

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b).
The Clause, which deals largely with the administration of the tax, contains three small paragraphs which empower the Commissioners to make regulations for the administrative details of collection. In subsection (2), paragraph (a) obliges a trader to give an invoice and paragraph (c) obliges a trader to keep his records and to make them available for inspection. Naturally, one would take no exception to those two paragraphs, which, taken together, should provide sufficient information for the officer of the Customs and Excise to enforce collection of the tax.
Paragraph (b), however, is something altogether new. It requires a trader to ask for an invoice showing the details of a purchase of chargeable goods or the performance of chargeable services; and if he does not receive an invoice, an obligation is imposed upon the trader to report the failure to supply an invoice to the officer of Customs and Excise. It is a wholly undesirable principle to turn every trader into an ally of the Customs and Excise—a small sneak, in fact—and to have to report to them when a trader fails to produce an invoice for which, under the new legislation, he is compelled to be asked.
I submit that there is no need for paragraph (b) and that the powers given to the Customs and Excise under paragraphs (a) and (c) are quite sufficient for the enforcement of the tax without the snooping and sneaking powers which, but for the Amendment, are to be conferred under paragraph (b).

Mr. S. Silverman: It is not often that I spring so fast to the support of the Gov-

ernment, but on this occasion I am bound to say that they are being a little hardly treated by their supporters. I read subsection (2) not as a subsection to provide more snoopers, but to remove the need for some snoopers.
What the subsection does is to say, "Let us not rely on outside spies at all. Let us rely on the trade itself."And if the documents are needed and should have certain things on them, there is nothing wrong in saying that when traders engage in a transaction which requires such a document, one of them should say to the other, "Give me the necessary document."If he goes on asking for it and does not get it, it is reasonable to infer that there is some improper reason for its not being supplied. I think that the Government are entirely right in the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has put the case with his habitual force and I must say that its substance has been such that I find it much easier to agree with than I sometimes do. It is, of course, a fact that any scheme of this sort does require the cooperation of the trader, and to describe the trader who works honestly and tries to co-operate as "a sneak "is perhaps a little forceful criticism and a trifle unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) was not right in saying that this is a novelty. Under the price control system administered by the Board of Trade over the last four years, there were analogous provisions, and when one recalls that most respectable trade is carried on with invoices, it does not seem unreasonable to require a trader, if an invoice is not forthcoming in the normal way, to supply it.
The whole of this scheme does depend upon its being honestly administered with the co-operation of the trade. That is why, on earlier Amendments, I laid some emphasis on the desirability of not overloading the trade with administrative work. But in this case all we are asking is that they shall co-operate so that the scheme shall be fairly administered and so that the honest trader shall not find himself at a disadvantage if an occasional black sheep tries to violate the provisions of the scheme.

Mr. Gaitskell: Before the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll)


presses his Amendment further, or seeks to withdraw it, I feel that a few words of congratulation are due to the Financial Secretary from our side of the Committee. After all, he has converted himself to a remarkable extent from poacher to gamekeeper in this matter.
I shall not draw you, Sir Charles, too far back into the past, but, remembering the Gas Bill, on which we spent many hours in Committee arguing its provisions— many of them about the rights of the individual—when I recall the hon. Gentleman's passionate defence of the rights of the householder as against the gas inspector, and when I remember the occasions on which at Question time and in debates on other Finance Bills he passionately devoted himself to the cause of deposit holders of banks, of traders who ought not to have to fill in forms and of many other individual subjects of Her Majesty, it is really at first sight somewhat remarkable that there should be a change of this kind.
But it is wonderful what a difference office makes to a man. It does let in the light where darkness had hitherto existed and makes him understand that, after all, it is not such a burden on the individual. We all feel a real pleasure that this change has taken place, and this sweetness and light in the defence of these various practices is a great reassurance to the Committee. But it must have been very difficult to make this change and we realise how difficult it was, not only because of the change itself, but because it means that for ever afterwards the hon. Gentleman will not be able to defend any of these individuals—and that is a great sacrifice. We all appreciate it, and congratulate him on the pleasant way in which he has made it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is very gratifying to receive such kindly words from an ex-gamekeeper and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), finds poaching agreeable. Perhaps I may express the further hope that he will have plenty of time in the next four or five years to perfect himself in that art.

Mr. Erroll: I must say I am very disappointed with the answer given by the Financial Secretary. He tells me that this is not a new idea. We might have had some evidence why it is still so necessary. We have had no proof

of the need for this power to insist on a trader being a sneak against his fellow traders. I am not, of course, going to divide the Committee, but I hope that perhaps next year we shall see the deletion of this Clause. If the Committee will allow me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: This Clause gives the Commissioners of Inland Revenue fairly wide powers to make Regulations regarding documents. I think it is right that certain assurances should be asked from the Financial Secretary before we pass the Clause because, unlike the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), I have a very high opinion of my hon. Friend and, great as is the anxiety of the Chancellor to get the Clause through, I am sure that is as nothing to his anxiety that Parliament should retain reasonable control over delegated legislation.
There are one or two points which, in the interests of traders and of the public, must be put in regard to the powers of the Commissioners to ask for and require documents under this Clause. Already the Commissioners by the publication of Notice 78D, have served notice on the trade that they will require certain innovations on invoices. I will give one example to the Committee to show that there are certain dangers of complication if bureaucratic action is allowed to run riot in this way. In addition to the normal requirements which have to be met by an invoice, it is proposed that the new series of code numbers shown in appendix A to Notice 78D should be required against each item on an invoice and the notice says that this must take place whether or not any Purchase Tax under the D scheme is payable.
If one looks at the code numbers involved, one can see that the extra amount of work required for a firm delivering an invoice is going to be very great indeed. If it were essential, if there were no other way of getting the information, one might not object very strongly, but, so far as we can see, the information called for simply duplicates information given in another way. It has been calculated that something like 10 per cent. extra work


will be required to give the code numbers which the Commissioners propose to require. For example, in the case of a man's three-piece woollen suit, it will be necessary, in addition to giving the Purchase Tax rate and the D figure, which are already given in the simplest possible way by one letter and figure code in shillings to add the following code number, "M3 (A)/ M4 / M5 (A)."All that tells us is that it is a man's three-piece woollen suit and in any case that information is given on the invoice.
It seems to me that the benefit the Commissioners will receive from the introduction of these code numbers can only be very small. Neither I nor anyone in the trade whom I have consulted can think of a single instance in which it would make it easier for the Commissioners either to prevent fraud or to make investigations into fraud.
I hope the Financial Secretary will give us the assurance, before these onerous requirements and others of the same kind are made, that full consultation with the representatives of the trade will take place and that the Treasury will make every effort to restrict the Commissioners within the limits of common sense, brevity and simplicity. There is a great deal of apprehension in the trade that under the Regulations which the Clause empowers the Commissioners to make there will be an immense amount of extra work. As I have pointed out, these code numbers alone will add about 10 per cent. to the cost of preparing every invoice. That will probably have to be passed on to the consumers, and the public themselves will suffer. If my hon. Friend could re-assure us in this way, I think we should all pass this Clause in a much happier frame of mind.

Mr. Hale: I have been studying some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I cannot find in the Bill, as presented to the House, any sanctions for imposing any of these Regulations. I take it that they are to be found in the Finance Act, 1940, and the sections referred to in the opening sentence of this Clause. I ask because the wording of subsection (2, b) is a little unusual. It gives power to make Regulations to

impose obligations; the word "obligations "is a little unusual in this connection.
Is it to be a criminal offence if a man does not ask for an invoice, or forgets to ask again in the event of any failure to give it or, if that failure continues. he forgets to ask the prescribed person or does not know who the prescribed person is? If this is a reasonable sort of method to prescribe, it is reasonable to ask whether a man is to have 12 months' imprisonment imposed for it, and how it is to be enforced.
I ask the Financial Secretary to refer to one paragraph to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale made no reference—subsection (2, d)—which appears to me much more surprising than any of the others because, power having been given for everything that it is desired to do, the Financial Secretary adds that provision. I would not be surprised if he is not able to say that in the course of a subsection of some previous enactment at some time or other a somewhat similar provision has been included by some preceding Government and that the vigilant eyes of Members of the Opposition have not noticed it.
I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, who spoke with great eloquence and fervour, and certainly with courage and determination, for pressing this matter until he got an unsatisfactory answer, when he rose to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. 
Subsection (2, d) says:
for any incidental or supplementary matters.
If this is a criminal Clause—I do not know—and if penalties are prescribed, and if they can be added for any "supplementary matters,"the Committee might reasonably inquire what is the interpretation of the Financial Secretary of "incidental "or what is supplementary to a failure to receive a form, or a, failure to ask for one, or a failure to notify someone that one should have had a form or, a prescribed person not having had one, the person concerned has failed to do something about it. What is incidental or supplementary to that?
The Financial Secretary will know that I am one of those who have been on the other side of the House when he has made impassioned appeals for liberty and has said that criminal matters must be


handled with the most scrupulous care and scrupulous regard for the rights of the individual. If we are making a criminal offence there should be some method of finding out, either in the Measure or in Regulations, or even in a few sentences in HANSARD—which cannot be quoted in court—in some words of the Financial Secretary, what was in the mind of Her Majesty's Government when they recommended these words to the Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to answer first a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude). There will, of course, be consultation with the trade before these Regulations are made, and there is every intention that they shall be as simple as possible. Indeed, I think the Committee will appreciate that in the discussion of at least two previous Amendments I have indicated that it is the view of the Government that simplicity in these matters is of great importance. That will certainly apply to these Regulations.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), asked what would be the sanction behind the Regulations. He very nearly supplied the answer. It is, of course, in Section 33 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, read with Section 35 of the same Act. A further safeguard for the liberty of the individual—in which I appreciate the hon. Member for Oldham, West, shares the interest of some of us—in addition to the consultation before the making of the Regulations, is the fact that those Regulations will be laid before the House.

Mr. Hale: What is the penalty to be prescribed in the Regulations? What is "incidental or supplementary "?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What is incidental or supplementary is a matter to be embodied in the Regulations and is susceptible to discussion when the Regulations are laid. I could not be expected to give a general ruling on that extraordinarily difficult point, nor indeed would such a ruling be binding on anyone.
So far as the penalties are concerned, I am advised that under the Finance Act, 1940, the penalty was put at a lower figure but by some subsequent Measure it was raised to a maximum of £100. Whether the Regulations prescribe so high a figure is a matter which will

have to await the drafting of the Regulations, but I understand that to be the maximum structure within which they fall.

Mr. Erroll: The Financial Secretary has not really answered the point about the code numbers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude), has demonstrated are completely redundant and unnecessary, as the goods are adequately described by other means. Could the Financial Secretary not give us an assurance that this elaborate description by code numbers can be dispensed with?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thought I had answered the point by saying that we favour the utmost simplicity possible. It is not possible, in replying in Committee, without previous warning, to argue a case for a particular system of code numbers. I have indicated to my hon. Friend our general wish for the greatest simplicity. It may well be that such a system of code numbers is the simplest method of doing the job. If my hon. Friend cares to discuss the matter with me, or to raise it in the House, with notice, at a subsequent stage, I shall be glad to deal with it. I hope that he will accept it as our general intention to make this matter as simple as possible.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the Financial Secretary, in answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), as regards penalty, confirm that there is not only a penalty of a £100 fine but also a penalty of two years' imprisonment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All I can say is that it is provided in the Sections of the Finance Act, 1940. I have not had an opportunity to study them since the point was raised, but the provision is in the statute and is available to hon. Members.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move,
That the consideration of Parts III to VI, of new Clauses and of Schedules 1 to 3 be postponed until after the consideration of Schedule 4.
The object of the Motion is to move Schedule 4 as it has been printed on the Order Paper in order that we may continue the discussion of Purchase Tax in its application to the Schedules. The


right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), raised a point in regard to Schedule 3. It will be remembered that when we discussed a Government Amendment on fur-trimmed garments, which was referred to in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 8th May, we said we should be putting down a new Clause. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), asked me to state, at the first opportunity, whether by moving up Schedule 3 we had prejudiced consideration of the new Clause. We are not moving up Schedule 3; therefore, the position is preserved.
I should like also to say, on procedure, that at a later date it may well be that one or two minor suggestions of the same sort will be made by the Government, perhaps, for example, after conversation with some right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and it may be convenient to move up the Schedule relating to the Excess Profits Levy for it to be taken at the same time as the Clauses on that matter. I give warning of that in case we come to some understanding at a later date, in which case I shall put on the Paper a Motion, which can be considered and accepted or rejected, as the Committee likes. It is really for convenience. Where I have some Government Amendments to any subject I shall attempt to put them on the Order Paper whenever I can so that they may have the maximum consideration. I hope that this procedural point is one which may assist the Committee.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am obliged to the Chancellor for dealing with the points raised during our discussion on Thursday. I understand from what he has said that he is keeping an open mind on the possibility of putting down another Motion with regard to the consideration of the Third Schedule; and that instead of dealing with the Third Schedule now, after this group of Clauses, he is waiting until after we have dealt with the Fourth Schedule. It may be the Chancellor will then put down a Motion similar to this for the discussion of the Third Schedule in conjunction with the new Clause on Purchase Tax—which is the first new Clause on the Order Paper—and the one from which the Third Schedule derives.
In order to get it clear, may I ask the Chancellor if he has considered whether it would be appropriate to dispose of the

whole of the Purchase Tax part of the Bill by dealing with the new Clauses and the Third Schedule immediately after we have concluded our consideration of the Fourth Schedule?

Mr. Gaitskell: Before the Chancellor replies, may I ask him whether he is quite sure that there is nothing in the Fourth Schedule which has relation to the new Clause which he is going to move on fur-trimmed garments? Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just said, has he considered whether it will be possible to take the other new Clauses on Purchase Tax—there are several of them in the names of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee—immediaately after the Fourth Schedule, or at any rate at some earlier stage, or is it his intention that those other new Clauses shall be left in their normal position in the discussion of the Bill?

Mr. Butler: I think it is probably the case that there will be one or more new Clauses to be taken in their proper place at the end of the Bill. But we shall tidy it up as much as possible, and if it is possible to bring anything forward, I shall inform the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman. But it will be inevitable that something is left out of its proper place in the Bill.
In answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East, we shall take the Third Schedule in the proper place and the new Clauses will follow, and therefore his point will not be lost.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I understand it, then, it is the proposal of the Chancellor that we should now discuss the Amendments to the Fourth Schedule and that we should then return to Clause 10 of the Bill and proceed accordingly? I am not quite clear whether he proposes that the Schedules to the Income Tax part of the Bill and the Excess Profits Levy should be taken in their normal place or should also be brought in earlier. If he could clear that point, I should be obliged.

Mr. Butler: I had in mind that we might take the Excess Profits Levy Schedules with the Excess Profits Levy Clauses. If it were thought convenient, I would put down a Motion—I would here like to try to test the opinion of the Committee—to deal with the Income Tax Schedules with the Income Tax Clauses.


But that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. I think that if it is thought convenient, we might do that.
This is a most complicated Finance Bill in which hon. Members have legitimate interests, and have exhibited a sincere desire to put forward points representing their own point of view or that of their constituents. We are trying to take matters so that we do get through it before Whitsun and fulfil our duty of carrying out the financial business of the country.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), about fur-trimmed garments, I see that there is an Amendment to the Fourth Schedule, page 76, line 11, column 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) and other hon. Members to leave out the words, "or of fur skin." Would the Chancellor consider—perhaps not immediately—whether it would he more convenient for that Amendment to be taken together with other fur discussions, rather than that it should, as I fear it may, interfere with the conduct of the discussions we shall be having on some of the more specifically textile clothing items on Schedule 4?

Mr. Mitchison: There is one point which I do not understand and on which I shall be glad of an answer from the Chancellor. I refer to some of the new Clauses and in particular one proposed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), and others regarding the rate of Purchase Tax on boots and shoes.
It presents an alternative, though a very different one, to a number of Amendments standing in the names of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee. Broadly speaking, the point is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to alter the rate of the tax, while we wish to alter the point at which it begins to fall. It seems to me that it would be far more convenient if a matter of that sort could be discussed in conjunction with the Amendments instead of being left for discussion at a later stage. I hope the Chancellor will feel able to say that he sees no objection to that new Clause being taken at the end of the Amendments relating to that group.

Mr. Butler: The answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is that the Government have no power, nor is it their desire, to move about Clauses put down by private Members. We can only move about the Clauses or the Schedules in our own Bill which we have put down ourselves—so that the suggestion he makes would have to be carried out after discussion and by agreement. But I am certainly ready to talk to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to others concerned, including the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.
The answer to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is that we do not want to duplicate discussion about furs and skins. We shall have had quite enough discussion on Purchase Tax by the time we have finished—I doubt if any of us will want to hear about the subject again. Meanwhile, I will look into his point, but I would rather give a definite answer when we get nearer that portion of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Consideration of Parts III to VI, of New Clauses and of Schedules 1 to 3 postponed until after consideration of Schedule 4.

Fourth Schedule.—(PURCHASE TAX: PRE-
SCRIBED LISTS FOR WEARING APPAREL AND FOR CLOTH ETC.)

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 73, line 9, at the end, to insert:
and textile material containing fifty per cent. or more by weight of silk.
"In all our textile discussions and the problems which we have discussed in recent weeks the emphasis has been rather on Lancashire, which is the great cotton producing county. Nevertheless, there are smaller elements of the textile industry spread all over Britain and they have their problems which have been rather lost sight of.
It is generally recognised in the textile industry that the steady improvements in the rayon trade are gradually overhauling most other fabrics. But silk will always remain a very fine and high-grade article, although not necessarily expensive. It has a much better feel and texture and is something which I do not think will ever die, although the quantity may not increase so far as production is concerned.
It is sometimes said that nylon is ousting all other fabrics. Nylon certainly is a


great invention and has begun to replace many other kinds of clothing, but the other day I was told of a lady who wears two pairs of nylon stockings at the same time. She finds nylons very cold and wears the two pairs for warmth. I understand that it is sufficient to wear one pair of silk stockings. And they probably look every bit as good if not better.
The Chancellor will agree that the future of Britain's exports depends on quality goods. It is already recognised that in North and South America quality goods are wanted, provided that we can offer them at the right price. It is useless manufacturers in this country trying to compete with the textile firms in Central Europe in the sale of the cheaper lines. That is why I make a special plea for the silk industry.
The D scheme acts against the higher priced fabrics. I recognise all the difficulties of the Douglas Committee. The terms of reference were too narrow. The late Government could have widened them just before they went out of power, and I think that my right hon. Friend could have done something, if he had had time, just after we came into office.
We have to back up our exports with a sound home market. It is not generally recognised that textiles have to be tried out in the home market in order to formulate designs which will sell abroad. This is a seasonal trade. Not only does the home market assist in achieving exports in silk, but the designs of many of the cheaper fabrics such as cotton and rayon are copied from the more expensive silks. The manufacture of silk goods renders great assistance in the production of the cheaper fabrics.
The silk industry is relatively worse off than it was before the D scheme was introduced. Silk is now taxed from 4s. a yard, which means 2s. 8d. a yard off. The D level for silk should be raised. It is taxed now at 66⅔ per cent. In 1947 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in the early hours of the morning, reduced the tax on silk from 100 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. That is one of the very few good things which I can remember him doing. Shortly afterwards the tax went up to 66⅔ per cent.
This fluctuation unsettles the industry. That is why, to some extent, we have a recession. The textile industry needs certainty for the next two or three years on this question of tax. I mention rayon because it is produced parallel with the silk industry. In 1951 approximately 2 million square yards of finished rayon fabrics were imported into this country every week. Is this necessary? Why is it done? I ask the Government to take account of these vast imports. They react against silk and the other industries.
Recently I had pointed out to me a dress in a West End store. It cost £11 19s. It was a fine filament rayon. This is a fine technical improvement as a result of which one can hardly tell the difference between rayon and silk. The cost of the printed fabric, of which 4½ yards was used, was 29s. The Purchase Tax was £3. It is that type of tax which presents the difficulty. The lower-quality woollen goods in Class A of the D scheme are sold free of tax. Wool cloths with a wholesale price of less than 14s. 6d. a yard are free of tax, whereas the tax applies to silk at a wholesale price of 4s. a yard.
It does not follow that silk is more expensive. A man's woollen dressing-gown tax-free costs 75s. and a silk dressing-gown costs 40s. I am sure that hon. Members would like to have silk dressing-gowns because they last for a long time.

Dr. Barnett Stross: At the beginning of his speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman discussed silk stockings and their obvious merit compared with nylons. He said that they were warmer. I entirely agree with him. Will he assure us that he will do his best —he is in a key position in the industry, as he represents Macclesfield—to persuade manufacturers to give our womenfolk more of the fishnet variety of silk stockings, if possible? Or will he try to persuade the Treasury that the manufacturers should be allowed to sell more fishnet silk stockings in this country? These stockings do not ladder, and they would be tremendously popular. They really would compete with nylons because they are ladderless.

6.45 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman probably knows much more about this subject than I do. I can only tell him that my wife does not like fishnet


stockings. She prefers the other type. But I will represent that point of view and hear what is said about it. I suggest that if Purchase Tax is not to be abolished on silk goods, then they should be put in category A instead of B. Silk would then bear a tax of 2s. 4d. a yard which would bring it more into line with rayon.
We have considerable unemployment in my constituency. We have had it now for nearly a year. I have often made the point that 70 per cent. of the industry in Macclesfield is connected with the manufacture of textiles. I am glad to say that the Government have helped in one way. A licence has been granted for a new industry, but we do not want too many new industries. We must protect our old industry, which is the manufacture of silk. There have been considerable exports—[Interruption.] The former Home Secretary may laugh—

Mr. Ede: I was laughing at the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Air Commodore Harvey: I cannot think that there is anything to laugh at, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all depend upon him to give concessions. We must treat him with great reverence.
Let us preserve this great industry. If it is left in the present position regarding taxation, it will become increasingly difficult to make sales and gradually the industry will have to close down. There is already less trade. I believe that the recession may be only temporary. I have had indications from industrialists that they can already see a brighter horizon with inquiries from abroad‖[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) thinks that is funny, I must tell him that I consider it to be rather encouraging. We must export to live. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that.

Mr. Pannell: The reason I laughed had nothing at all to do with the laudable efforts to put silk in the export market. I thought that at that stage the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks were rather coloured by his political hopes.

Air Commodore Harvey: I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman was getting at. I have tried to make my argument on a non-party basis. I have tried not to be controversial. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be controversial,

I will be, but my main anxiety is to get a concession from the Chancellor, to get on with the Finance Bill and to get on with the trade of the country. I hope that full consideration will be given to this Amendment.

Mr. William Shepherd: I want to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has said about the difficulties of the silk industry. In my own constituency, which is very close to his, I am concerned only with cotton textiles, but I am close enough to Macclesfield to realise what difficulties that town is going through at the present time.
The Chancellor may be right when he says that the reduction or abolition of the Purchase Tax will not, in any general sense, be capable of restoring the textile trade, but I think he could say with absolute frankness and fairness that, so far as silk is concerned, a concession in respect of Purchase Tax would help the industry very materially indeed.
Under the existing arrangements, with a D line of 4s. a yard and tax of 66i per cent., this industry does bear a disproportionate burden as compared with wool or cotton. I do not think it is an industry whose condition or whose difficulties in respect of competition justifies it being called upon to bear this exceptional burden. The burden of competition on the industry is very real indeed. Silk has not been superseded entirely by nylon, but nylon is making very serious inroads into the market, and this fact really justifies the Chancellor of the Exchequer now doing something to encourage an industry of some considerable importance and not allow it to die.
I am not exaggerating when I say that, unless some real attempt is made to put the silk industry in a better position regarding taxation than now appears the case, there is every expectation that this industry, which was so strongly established in Macclesfield and which has done great credit to our country in all other countries of the world, will be in great danger of dying out. I therefore hope that Financial Secretary or the Chancellor will give some assistance to Macclesfield.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: I want to support my two hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of this


Amendment, the object of which is to help the silk industry. Although this industry is a small one, that does not mean that it has not been just as hard hit by the present depression as the rest of the textile industry.
I have in my constituency what I believe is the oldest silk mill in the country, and I know the alarm and concern which the people in the village of Gal-gate, where it is situated, feel about the present position. I am afraid that the silk industry is something of a Cinderella. It has suffered under the existing scheme and it seems likely to suffer again under the new scheme as well.
For this reason, I hope the Chancellor will see his way to accepting this Amendment. There is, first of all, the question of unemployment, and there is also the aspect of quality. Although this industry is a small one, it has always specialised in high quality goods, and there is no doubt that the high quality silk goods which we have sent to America and elsewhere in the past have been extremely valuable exports. It would be a tragedy if, by neglect of this industry, we were to kill this particular goose and deprive ourselves of the golden eggs which it lays.
In our view, the D line of 4s. a yard which is suggested is inadequate. We feel that silk should be included in category A along with wool, and that a D line of 14s. 6d. per yard should be fixed. Already, in Schedule 4 of this Bill, the Chancellor has a pretty wide range of animal life. They are given, I see, in alphabetical order, beginning with the alpaca, continuing with the camel, the goat, the hare, the lamb, the llama, the rabbit, the sheep and the vicuna, and ending up with the yak. Surely, my right hon. Friend can find room in his Noah's Ark for so small a beast as the silkworm?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the Committee appreciates the concern which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) always shows in the future of this industry, with which his constituency has been so long associated, and I do not think that anyone would quarrel with a great deal of what he said on the desirability of assisting this most valuable exporting industry, and of the need to back up an export market with an adequate home market.
I think, however, that my hon. and gallant Friend perhaps a little underrated what we are, in fact, doing precisely to that end by the Bill as it stands. Silk was outside the old Utility scheme, and, in accordance with the recommendations of the Douglas Committee, is now being brought within the D scheme. As a consequence, whereas prior to the change there was no mitigation of the effect of the Purchase Tax, which fell fully on these products, it now receives the value of the D scheme, with the result that all lines bear less tax than they previously did. I think that that should convince my hon. and gallant Friend that. in a good deal of what he has been urging, he was really pushing at an open door.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He is quite right, it would help, but other fabrics, such as wool, are in a higher D level and are by that amount better off, whereas we are that amount worse off.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a point to which I am coming, but I have said that we start with the assumption that, from the general tax point of view, this industry, relatively, is not in such a bad position, because, whereas other industries used to have the clash of Utility or non-Utility, paying the full rate of tax above the Utility range and having exemption below it, this industry starts without a Utility range at all.
It is said that its relative position to the wool industry is deteriorating. I do not want to get involved in any discussion as to the relative merits or demerits of these two industries, or whether it is desirable to benefit one against the other, because that is a matter upon which I have no doubt hon. Members will be very much divided. It is, of course, the fact that there is not necessarily a close connection either between wool and silk or between cotton products and silk. It is really a question of judgment as to what is the right category in which to place this particular industry, and here we are starting with one which has absolutely benefited, in ay event, through the changes in the D scheme.
It is perhaps the converse case to these other industries which have been referred to in our discussions, and it does seem that, on balance, this industry is being treated not unreasonably in placing it in


the same category as a considerable number of cotton products, some of them very high grade, which are in the category to which this particular level of he D scheme applies. We feel that, on balance, this is the reasonable place to put it, and that, in so far as Purchase Tax has an effect upon employment and prosperity in the industry, we are really treating this industry quite sensibly in placing it in the particular category in which it is placed in the Schedule
7.0 p.m.
My hon. and gallant Friend, and, indeed, many hon. Members who represent towns in which particular industries are concerned, will naturally and very properly stress the claims of those industries to what they regard as preferential treatment. But my right hon. Friend has to consider the matter over the whole sphere of textiles, and, on balance, when we are already giving this industry some assistance, it really seems that this is the right place to put it.

Mr. John Edwards: The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) is to be complimented on raising this matter because it is extremely important that we should not overlook the silk industry in our discussions on the D scheme and the Purchase Tax. It is, after all, an industry with a very fine tradition and a great past, and one that has made an extremely useful contribution over the years. We ought not, therefore, to overlook it.
I thought the Financial Secretary put his words rather strangely when he told his hon. and gallant Friend that he was pushing at an open door. Later, he seemed to shut this door very firmly on the ground that he had opened it for a little time at some previous point. I do not agree with everything that the hon. and gallant Member said in moving this Amendment—indeed, I think some of the comparisons he made were not necessarily sound—but there is no denying the fact that the silk industry, in common with the other textile industries, is at the moment in a bad way, and it would be a mistake not to do anything which would help it out of its present difficulties.
We on this side believe what we have said so often, that one of the ways in which these industries can be helped at

the present time is by the removal of Purchase Tax or by the introduction of tax concessions of one kind or another. Therefore, we believe that in this particular case it would be right to help the industry further than it is proposed to help it.
The Financial Secretary is perfectly right in saying that, absolutely, the position of the industry has improved, but I think the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield was also right when he maintained that, comparatively, the position of the silk industry was, in fact, worse—" absolutely "better; "comparatively "worse. Therefore, I think it right to ask the Financial Secretary to consider whether in these circumstances, even if he cannot go the whole way, he cannot go part of the way.
I know that if this concession were made, either in whole or in part, it would have certain consequences, and there is no doubt that there would be considerable difficulty in sorting out the categories. Quite frankly, when I consider this field of fibres, both natural and artificial, I find it difficult to put them into categories at all. The situation is very complex. One reacts upon the other. One cannot think about cotton without thinking of rayon, or about rayon without thinking about natural silk. All these things have an effect one on the other.
The situation not only in Macclesfield. but in a number of other places at the present time is such that it is right for those of us who have any silk interest to put this point of view to the Committee and to ask the Financial Secretary to reconsider the matter. As I have already said, even if he cannot go all the way, will he go part of the way? Will he say something that will at any rate restore the comparative position and thus help the people who are either unemployed or working short time? If he can make any concession, he will do so in the knowledge that it will help the industry.

Dr. Stross: I wish to put one or two short points to the Financial Secretary on this matter. I listened with great interest to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) because we Members of North Staffordshire also have some constituency interests. A number of our womenfolk go not to Macclesfield but to Leeds to work in the silk industry.


I feel that this industry has a long and very interesting background, and I would be afraid to kill the worm that spins the golden web if only because I fear I should be haunted by the ghost of Marco Polo and those others who lived in his day, people who took great risks to bring the eggs of this particular worm into Europe and who gave us this thriving industry. It is a limited industry and any amelioration of tax cannot have any profound influence because there is a limit to the amount of material we can get.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made it clear that we must have a home market as well as a certain export market. Therefore, it is desirable that this limited industry—an industry where the tax cannot matter enormously to the Treasury—should be kept healthy in both ways. We should, as it were, keep the industry on its feet all the time and thus make certain of its contribution to the export drive by keeping its work-people fully employed.
The new difficulties that have recently arisen give fresh point to our pleas on this matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman has not said the last word on the subject and will tell the Committee that the matter will be reconsidered in view of all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides.

Air Commodore Harvey: I think that my hon. Friends, as I was myself, were disappointed with the Financial Secretary's reply. He usually argues with great force on all points, but today I felt that the matter had not been given very serious consideration. I am sorry to say that. He talked about our parochial views. But I have not been to Macclesfield and talked to one or two manufacturers and then come here with a brief. We have gone into this matter in some detail. In the last week I discussed it with Sir Ernest Goodale, who was a member of the Douglas Committee. He agrees with the views I put forward today.
I hope the Financial Secretary will say that he will reconsider this matter—which does not involve a great sum of money—between now and the Report stage. If that is not possible, and I fully appreciate all the difficulties which the Government have on hand at the moment—they have only been in office six months and the country is in a financial crisis, although

very few people seem to realise it—I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that if the industry should deteriorate in the next 12 months my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider the matter very seriously at the time of the next Budget.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope I did not seem unsympathetic to my hon. and gallant Friend because, if I did, it was a false impression. I certainly would not and did not describe him as parochial in his views. The difficulty is, as he will appreciate, that this tax cannot be looked at in complete isolation. Indeed, it was part of his argument that it should be looked at in relation to the tax on wool fibres. Of course, it is equally material that it has to be looked at in relation to all kinds of cotton fibres, and, therefore, to some very considerable extent, that argument of relativity is cancelled out.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the
anomaly disappear completely if only the Government would do what all Members for textile constituencies have unitedly asked them to do, that is, take Purchase Tax off textiles altogether?

Mr., Boyd-Carpenter: If I attempted to
deal with that point, I am afraid I should be ruled out of order.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) asked very reasonably why we could not go part of the way, suggesting, I suppose, some intermediate figure. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps recall that the Douglas Committee did consider that possibility and rejected it. At paragraph 106 of their Report they said:
…these fibres should not be treated exceptionally either by denying them the benefits of the scheme, of by fixing for them special D figures.
And the distinguished Gentleman my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield quoted a moment ago was a member of that Committee.
What my hon. and gallant Friend said will be noted, of course. I think he will appreciate that in the circumstances, when we are introducing the whole new scheme of this tax, it would be very wrong to mislead the Committee by scattering assurances widely over the field. The scheme must be looked at as a whole. But he may be equally certain that the interests of this ancient and valuable in-


dustry will be very carefully watched and that it is certainly far from the intention of the Government to see it brought to unnecessary difficulties.

Mr. Osborne: I am sorry to keep the Committee for more than a moment, but I think that what I want to say ought to be said. I fully sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) in making out a case for the industry in his own constituency. It is what he should do and what we all do. He based his case upon the fact that there is unemployment in his constituency. He hoped that if there were a reduction in this taxation, it would increase employment there.
I think we are deluding ourselves in keeping on saying this to one another and to the country. I do not think that the textile position would be materially improved at all in the next 12 months if the whole of taxation were taken off. We tend to forget what has been made so clear in United Nations reports time after time—that the textile problem in this country is part of the world textile problem and that, no matter what is done with taxation here, it would not materially help the position or, I am sorry to tell my hon. and gallant Friend, immediately alleviate unemployment in his constituency.

Air Commodore Harvey: How can my hon. Friend possibly make a statement like that when we are competing with the Swiss, the Italians, the Germans and the Japanese? Any concession—even on another 100,000 yards of fabric—would be of some assistance. We have heard that speech from my hon. Friend time and time again, and I am rather tired of it.

Mr. Osborne: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I am as interested in the textile industry as he is. I want to see it prosper as he does, and I am as anxious about unemployment in industry as he is, because I have been one of the unemployed and I know what it means. But it is foolish to mislead ourselves and the nation and to kid ourselves, if I may use that term, that by altering taxation we shall immediately and materially increase employment in the textile industry.
My hon. and gallant Friend says that it would help us with our exports. It

would do nothing of the sort. Exports do not carry Purchase Tax. I am saying all this again as a warning. I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend is tired of this speech, but I think it is a speech that ought to be made, because the one thing the nation must face at this juncture is facts which we find unpopular and unpleasant.

Mr. S. Silverman: It would be quite wrong—and I am sure you would not allow it, Mr. Anderson—if we were to attempt to repeat last Thursday's debate on the taxation of textiles, and I am not going to do it; but in view of the speeches we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps it is worth while to point out that nobody has said at any time that any such measures as those proposed then or as are now proposed would afford any permanent remedy for the ills of any section of the textile trade. That has never been claimed.
The claim has been a quite different and a much more modest one, but I think a real one and one in which all hon. Members representing textile constituencies, except one, have concurred. It was that it would give an immediate fillip to the home market and by so doing would bring an almost immediate and significant alleviation, though not a cure, of the misery and suffering which is rising steadily in every textile industry at the moment.
7.15 p.m.
But I do not know what the two hon. Members opposite are quarrelling about. One of them thinks it would be a good thing to do. The other one thinks it would be a bad thing, but as both of them supported the Government in not doing it I do not know why they are wasting our time now.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not accept the relativity argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). In so far as there is a relationship between the tax that ought to be levied on silk, on the one hand, and on wool and cotton, on the other, it is to my mind wholly in favour of making some concession to silk. The silk industry is in an unusual position because it is losing its trade to two new competitors—the rayon and nylon industries.


The silk industry is basically and proportionately in a much worse position than the cotton industry, which is not in a general sense being superseded. The silk industry is being hit particularly hard by developments in new fibres, and therefore there is no reason why we should not go to its assistance. It will go out of existence unless it gets better treatment than 66⅔ per cent. tax above the 4s. level. I hope that between now and the Report stage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take time to reconsider the position.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) tried to score his usual points about going into the Division Lobby, but he had ample opportunities between 1945 and 1950 to support me on this measure.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member may or may not be right, but I do not see the application of what he says. Surely he will admit that the case on this point, as between what the position was in 1945 and what it is in 1952, is by no means the same case. The point is that we all now agree

unanimously that this ought to be done. We on this side of the Committee went into the Division Lobby to say it ought to be done. The hon. and gallant Member went into the Division Lobby to say that what he believed ought to be done ought not, in fact, to be done.

Air Commodore Harvey: Perhaps I have a better realisation of the position of the country than has the hon. Member. In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment I readily accept the assurances—[HON. MEMBERS: "No assurances."] The Financial Secretary said—hon. Members will read it in HANSARD tomorrow—that the Government will watch this industry very carefully. I assure hon. Members that I shall watch it also and I shall raise this matter again, if necessary. But I feel much happier about the assurances the Financial Secretary gave than about what was said by his opposite number in the past few years. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243 Noes, 268.

Division No. 120]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cocks, F. S.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Adams, Richard
Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Albu, A. H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Grey, C. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crosland, C. A. R
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dairies, P.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Awbery, S. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W)

Balfour, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, W W


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hardy, E. A


Bartley, P.
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Delargy, H. J
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Benson, G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Bins, G. H. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)


Blackburn, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Herbison, Miss M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edelman. M.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R.


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowles, F. G.
Ewart, R.
Hoy, J. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fernyhough, E
Hubbard, T. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Field, W. J.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fienburgh, W
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Or A. D. D
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burke, W. A.
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J (Wood Green)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A


Callaghan, L. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Janner, B.


Carmichael, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T N
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Champion, A. J
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Chetwynd, G. R
Glanville, James
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Clunie, J
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P C
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)




Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Orbach, M,
Stewart, Michael (Fulhatn, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oswald, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Keenan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Strauss, Fit. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paget, R. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Swingler, S. T.


Kinley, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parker, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Paton, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Lewis, Arthur
Pearson, A.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Logan, D. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


MacColl, J. E.
Porter, G.
Tomney, F.


McGhee, H. G.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


McGovern, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mclnnes, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Watkins, T. E.


McLeavy, F.
Rankin, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Richards, R.
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, C. P.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Messer, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mikardo, Ian
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Morley, R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams. W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mori, D. L.
Slater, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Murray, J. D.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


O'Brien, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Oldfield, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.



Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wigg and Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, H. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C


Amory, Healhcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fort, R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Foster, John


Arbuthnol, John
Carson, Hon. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Longdala)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Channon, H.
Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E H


Banks, Col. C.
Colgate, W. A.
Godber, J. B.


Barber, A. P. L.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gower, H. R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, F M. (Reading, N.)
Croslhwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H (Eye)


Birch, Nigel
Crowler, Petre (Ruislip—Norlhwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Black, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Boothby, R. J. G
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Bowen, E. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Donner, P. W.
Heath, Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Doughty, C. J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braine, B. R.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hill. Dr. Charles (Luton)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L,
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duthie, W. S
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hollis, M. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Fell, A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John







Hopkinson, Henry
Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, William


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Simon, J. E, S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hortbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Maudling, R
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S L C
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Howard, Greville (St. Ivas)
Medlicott, Brig. F
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Snadden, W. McN


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Spearman, A C M


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Speir, R. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Cark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, H. BH.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stevens, G. P.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nugent, G. R. H
Storey, S.


Kaberry, D.
Odey, G. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim. N)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lambert, Hon. G,
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Sutoliffe, H.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Osborne, C.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Partridge, E.
Teeling, W.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Perkins, W. R. D
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Thompson, Ll.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lindsay, Martin
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Linstead, H. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turner, H. F. L


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, J. Enoch
Turton, R. H.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
vane W. M F.


Low, A. R. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, H. V.
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Remnant, Hon. P
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McCallum, Major D.
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward. Hon. George (Worcester)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth).


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robertson, Sir David
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H (London &amp; Westminster)


McKibbin, A. J.
Robson-Brown, W
Wellwood, W.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


MacLeod, lain Rt. Hon. (Enfield, W.)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Salter, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur
Wills, G.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wood, Hon. R.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
York, C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Scott, R. Donald



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Oakshott.

7.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Anderson): Before we proceed further upon the Fourth Schedule, it has been suggested that for the purposes of discussion the Schedules should be divided into groups. It is suggested that we should take Nos. A.1 to A.7 as group No. 1; A.8 to A.18 as group No. 2 and A.19 to A.21 as group No. 3; but included with that group will be Nos. B.22 and B.23, at the bottom of page 77.
An Amendment will be selected and there will then be a general discussion upon the group as a whole. I suggest that that course might be taken.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that that course will be for the greater convenience of the Committee and that, as a result, we can get a fuller debate than by the normal
process. I understood you to say, Mr. Anderson, that one Amendment would be selected, upon which a discussion on the whole group would take place. I take it that that does not in any way suggest that when the discussion on the group is over voting will be restricted to that or any other one Amendment; but that, when we have had a discussion on the group, Amendments can be moved formally and put quickly, as may seem fit to both sides of the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: That depends upon whether or not the Amendments are selected.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Would it not be convenient to the Committee, Mr. Anderson, if, when you called a group, you at once indicated which Amendments you considered to be in order and therefore on which Amend-



ments we would eventually be able to divide?

Mr. Wilson: Further to that point, might I suggest that that would not be a very helpful suggestion? In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did say, in the debates which took place three or four weeks ago—and the Financial Secretary said it 10 days ago—that very full consideration would be given to the points which were made in the debate. We understood that they had in mind the making of certain proposals. It would not be useful if the Chair were to indicate at the beginning of the discussion on each group which Amendments were to be called. We would all hope to press particular Amendments and proposals, and the Chancellor might indicate his willingness to accept some of them. Only then, I think, would it be appropriate for the Chair to indicate what Amendments were selected.
Furthermore, there would be consequential effects of particular Amendments. If an Amendment to make "a man's suit "read "a man's coat "were conceded, it would be nonsensical if there were not similar Amendments in respect of the waistcoat and the trousers. If a concession were given to cotton piece goods it would probably be appropriate to give a similar concession to cotton sheeting. I hope that you will not agree to the suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse).

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is right. We should be in great difficulties if the Chair decided, in advance of the discussion, what Amendments would be selected. While we agree that it would meet the convenience of the Committee to discuss these Amendments together, I suggest that we should, nevertheless, have the usual right to divide on particular Amendments if we thought fit. We have no desire to waste the time of the Committee; but this is an important matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have constituency interests to consider, and I think that the question of dividing should be kept quite separate and that we should wait, until after the usual discussion, to hear what Amendments were selected.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I should like to make a suggestion, Mr. Anderson. There is a large number of

Members not present at the moment and you have made a statement which we shall not be able to read until tomorrow morning in HANSARD. In order to guide us and save the Chair a lot of time, perhaps you would see fit to put up in the "No" Lobby, on the notice board, a copy of what you have said.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think I should be responsible for issuing a notice for the benefit of those who are not present to hear what I say. In regard to the selection of Amendments, as it has been suggested that there should be a wide discussion on the various groups, I feel it would be unwise to give any prior indication as to what Amendments may be selected. I think that is the position so far as I am concerned. Is it agreed that the group discussion should take place? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] The next Amendment will cover group 1. I will indicate that straight away.

Mr. Pannell: For the purposes of this debate, I take it that we are speaking generally to group No. 1; but I should like to know whether we are addressing ourselves at the present time to a particular Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes, we are.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 73, line 32, to leave out "6 10 0," and to insert 8 5 0.
"
The principle laid down with regard to this type of overcoat is that which runs through all men's and boys' wear. The effect of this Amendment would be to save the customer approximately 12s. by putting up the D line. The type of coat which we have in mind is something which sells in the trade at about £11 retail. It is a general complaint in the trade that most of the categories now under discussion are lumped together in a most untidy way, and the line between them is not drawn with any proper precision. For instance, page 74, line 8. refers to
…Class A material, fully-lined or of sheepskin "—
applicable to—
Coats, cloaks and overall coats, being gar-
ments not exceeding 42 inches in length, jackets (not including blouse-type jackets or pyjama jackets), blazers, overall jackets, waterproof capes and fishermen's oilskin skirts.


When we consider the wide dissimilarity between all those things we see what a bad line-up it is.
The trade tell me that the real pinpoint of the argument is provided by the example of a jacket, which is the jacket of a suit, of course. It may be a high quality article, but it is lumped together with all sorts of things like overall jackets, waterproof capes, fishermen's oilskin skirts and so on. The trade say that there has been an attempt at what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) called over-simplification. It is impossible to marry those different articles in this way.
The trade say that, even where the D line is at a medium level, it brings a lot of things within taxation which were not taxed before. Perhaps I may give another example of hardship, which will be found on page 74, line 10, referring to blazers. We have discussed the question of the additional allowances earlier, but we suggest that there should be a higher D line in this case, which causes a measure of hardship. Everybody knows that a blazer is one of those articles of wearing apparel the cost of which falls particularly heavily on parents at the time when they have to rig boys and girls up for school.
Such a case would arise in the case of young men and young women, too. It has to be remembered that this is an item which may be met through an educational grant, and it affects, particularly, young men and young women of 16 and 17 years of age. We all know the expense which falls upon parents today, to say nothing of the fact that this is the sort of garment which is often obtained through educational grants.
It is difficult to get a good D line, particularly when we have such a sloppy classification as that which occurs on page 74, line 15, which refers to
blouse-type jackets, waistcoats, cardigans, jerseys, sweaters, pullovers, slip-overs and bed jackets.
Cardigans have long sleeves and need more materials; slip-overs have no sleeves and need less material; and waistcoats are made of a different material. The most important item in this classification, of course, is the waistcoat. The trade say that this classification is sloppy in every way.
I turn to the next point, on which I hope I shall have some support from hon. Members opposite. How do right hon. Gentlemen opposite reconcile this classification, on page 74, line 18—
Trousers (not including pyjama trousers), overall trousers, oilskin trousers, plus-fours, breeches, jodhpurs, kilts and bib-and-brace overalls "?
I hope Scottish hon. Members are here, for to lump a plumber's mate with a highlander seems to me a very shocking thing to do. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is not on the Government Front Bench at the moment, because he has received some condemnation from several of his hon. Friends—I notice only one is in his place—who seemed to suggest that the D line was so low on a kilt that they proposed to increase it to £7 10s. Here the D line is £2 5s.
If hon. Members consult the trade they will be told that one cannot buy even half a kilt on that D line. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who is not in his place, with whom I discussed this matter last week, was shocked about it, because he thought it was an insult to Scotland. I can understand the kilt being linked with jodhpurs, a word which has a classy and county connotation, but not with the apparel of a plumber's mate.
7.45 p.m.
It is quite indefensible to have oilskin trousers in the same classification. Some hon. Members say, "Why worry? No Scot puts on a kilt when he wants to do any work." I do not know whether that is true or not, but I do know that any hon. Member who has consulted anybody in the trade will appreciate that the D line in this classification has no reality at all.
If hon. Members look at line 24, which refers to shorts, they will realise that this refers to cycling shorts, khaki shorts and white tennis shorts, and it also includes cord shorts—and cord shorts are very similar to cord trousers except that the bottoms have been cut off. [Laughter.] It may sound humorous, but for corduroy trousers the D line is 35s., whereas for corduroy shorts it is 10s. The trade advise me that there is no reality running through this.
If we were in a mood to filibuster on the Finance Bill, which we certainly are


not, we should have an excellent weapon here in these classifications. They have given great dissatisfaction to the trade, because not only is there no precision but, as was said earlier in the debate, we have none of the allowances, such as the oversize allowance. I hope we shall hear something more about this from the Minister.
On page 73, line 23, we have a D line which refers to duffle coats. I hope hon. Members who live in Chelsea do not think that only the people who live there wear duffle coats. In fact, they are an article of wearing apparel for men who work on London's river, or navvies, and all sorts of people. Duffle coats perform a useful as well as an ornamental function, depending on the circle in which one moves.
Throughout these Amendments we are seeking, generally, to raise the D line to a higher level. We seek to raise it to a level nearer to that of the high-class Utility goods. This would mean that the sort of things which were not taxed before would not be taxed now—and many of these things are used by the lower income groups. I have sought to call attention to several items, and I hope we shall have support from hon. Members opposite and shall hear the voice of Scotland. Recently we had the example of an hon. Member opposite putting up a very strong case in favour of an Amendment, which he was not allowed to withdraw—and I do not know whether he went into the "Aye "Lobby or the "No "Lobby when we divided on it. One of my hon. Friends tells me he was badgered—

The Temporary Chairman: I think we had better stick to the terms of the Amendment rather than go back to the last Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Anderson, but I thought it reasonable to inquire what support we have, especially at a time when an insult has been proferred to Scotland. I see one Scotsman, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Bell), and I wonder whether we shall have his support?

Mr. Ronald Bell: I have come in to support kilts.

Mr. Pannell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is of Scottish extraction or no', but I have been told in the trade that of all things which are bad in

the classification, the kilt is the outstanding example of an insult to Scotland. This is a reflection upon Treasury officials or the Board of Trade officials, or whoever advises on the matter, and of all things. it is the sort of thing which should be pressed to a Division. I hope that Scottish hon. Members, including the one from Buckinghamshire, South, will have more courage than their comrade, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey).

Mr. Bell: Could the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by saying that kilts will be pressed to a Division?

Mr. Pannell: That is perfectly true. If the hon. Gentleman had been in earlier he would have heard that the D line was so low that one could only buy half a kilt. That is what I meant.

Mr. H. Wilson: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and deal with certain other items in the group which has been described as group 1. The particular Amendment that my hon. Friend moved is one of the most important in this group, because it is quite clear that the category there, as in so many of those given in the D scheme, is far too low in relation to what was the top Utility scheme.
The Committee will have noticed that many of the Amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends aim at bringing the D line very near to the top Utility price. To have the D line lower than the top Utility price means the imposition of tax on goods which are bought by the widest section of the community, and which were previously tax-free.
The other evening when we were debating the Motion, that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, I gave one or two figures which had been supplied to me to show that in shops serving representative sections of the middle and lower income groups, a considerable proportion of the goods which were previously tax-free were now subject to tax. I have specially looked at those figures in connection with men's wear, which is the subject of group 1 now before the Committee.
Taking the figures from certain Cooperative societies—I am taking them because they are comparable with one


another, although I can assure the Committee that exactly the same results would have been got if we had taken figures from privately-owned shops serving, roughly speaking, the same groups of customers—we get some interesting information. One Co-operative society on the South Coast says that 30 per cent. of the trade which was previously tax-free in men's wear will carry a tax under the Chancellor's proposal.
A large society in the East Midlands area states that 65 per cent. of the goods previously tax-free will now carry a tax, and the figures are 50 per cent. for the outfitting side and 100 per cent. for the bespoke side. Another society in the South Midlands states that 60 per cent. will be taxed which were not previously taxed, and a large society on the North-East Coast states that 50 per cent. will be taxed because Utility goods will now carry taxes.
Then a large society in the North-West states that 40 per cent, of non-taxed goods will carry taxes in future, and one in South Wales and another on the Welsh border give the figure of 80 per cent. as carrying tax. Another Midland's society states 57 to 60 per cent. on the outfitting side and 95 per cent. on the bespoke side. One of the largest Co-operative societies in the world states that. whereas 2½ per cent, of its trade had up to the present time carried tax. now the proportion will be 24 per cent.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: In order that I may follow the right hon. Gentlema argument, would he define what he means by "middle income group" and "lower income group"? What are the actual figures he has in mind?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think there are any recognised categories or groups. I think I can best explain the position to the hon. Member by stating that these groups buy most of their clothing at the Co-operative societies, because those are the figures covered by the examples I have given. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to go to a large number of shops in his own constituency—I do not say necessarily in the West End—he will find the figures correspond to those I have given.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Yes, but would the right hon. Gentleman say

that the middle income group earned £1,000 or £1,500 a year and the lower income group £750 a year or below that? That is the information I should like to have.

Mr. Wilson: The habits vary so much in different parts of the country that it is hard to say, but in discussing the Chancellor's Budget proposals on 13th March, I gave a lot of figures which probably correspond to the groups I had in mind. Something like three-quarters of the population have an income of about £550 a year or less, and if one takes that figure it would perhaps correspond—I do not know—to the groups that I have in mind. That covers three-quarters of the population and, therefore, a large enough section to be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.
Throughout many of the discussions we have had already on the broad issues like silk and in the many discussions we shall have on individual Amendments to the Schedules, the healthy state and activity of particular textile and clothing industries and the boot and shoe industry have been and will be specially stressed. One must expect, as the Financial Secretary said, that there will be a number of hon. Members raising constituency points and particularly dealing with the problems of those industries which have been hit by the depression in consumer goods.
Once again tonight, as I did in the discussion on the Motion, that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, I want to stress the very serious effect of the Chancellor's proposals in the D scheme, not only on the welfare of those industries about which my hon. Friends have argued, but also on the cost of living to the consumer. We know that in the general debates the Government have resisted pressure put on them by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to remove Purchase Tax altogether from clothing and textiles. One of the arguments used by the Financial Secretary and by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was that a large section of the goods produced by the textile industries are free of tax already and yet they are not being moved from the shops. What we are bound to ask is, if it is now difficult to sell these goods without tax, how much more difficult will it be to sell them when tax is put


on them? That is a problem which must face not only the textile industries, but the Government.
There are many detailed cases with which I might deal, but I shall confine myself to the first few Amendments on the Order Paper which come within group 1. There is the case mentioned by my hon. Friend of the duffle coats. Those who were following the Amendment will see that it deals with (a) and (b) in the Schedule, and we find that it says in (b) "Of class A material, not so lined." These are not just luxury garments. They are not used because they look nice, but because they are absolutely essential for a large number of outdoor workers like foresters, and others mentioned by my hon. Friend. Yet the Chancellor is going to put a tax on them when they were tax-free before.
My hon. Friend mentioned a shorter coat of class A material, which is mainly the jacket of a suit and he said that a wide variety was covered in this particular group. The advice from the trade, which I have consulted, suggests that the D level for this group is not at all unfair for a sports jacket, but for the jacket of a suit it is far too low. The Committee can well appreciate that a sports jacket takes far less to make up than the jacket of a suit. This group covers everything from a tennis blazer worn by members of a suburban tennis club to fisherman's oilskin garments. It is a very wide range. It is wide in the range of materials used, wide in the degree of essentiality, and wide in the range of prices covered. If the right hon. Gentleman were to put up that price to about £5 or so he could be sure that he would leave most of the existing tax free category still free of tax.
8.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend also mentioned—and this is very important in this context—the question of school blazers. We are all familiar with the problems of parents when their children are successful, as all parents hope their children will be successful, in winning scholarships to a grammar school or to other secondary schools. They have the problem of the cost of fitting out their children, and one of the unfortunate things about a great many of our schools—far too many—is that they insist on too much in the way of 
school uniforms, school blazers and so on, which very often can be bought only from one shop.
There is a monopolistic element in the sale of these blazers, and the parent is very hard put to it to find the money for fitting out his children. In the last Government my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Education and I tried to take steps to cut down the rigid requirements of certain schools, especially some of the more exotic forms of blazer and other uniforms which certain schools demanded. These proposals of the Chancellor to tax school blazers in this way are a very serious addition to the cost of those entering certain schools for the first time.
My hon. Friend mentioned also group A 4, and said that within that group the waistcoat was obviously the most important of the items, to which he suggested we should confine most of our arguments. But, of course, there are certain other things in that group. For instance, the blouse-type garment is referred to. I am quite prepared to believe that no hon. Member on either side of the Committee would normally be seen during the week, or even on his day off, wearing a blouse-type garment. On the other hand, I am told by the people in the trade that they are very popular among that class of the community which our American friends persist in calling "teen-agers." I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is fundamentally a kind-hearted man, does not want to place an additional burden on the teenagers who buy these blouse-type garments.

Sir Herbert Williams: My right hon. Friend is over teen-age.

Mr. Wilson: I know he is over teenage; but I know also that if he is appealed to properly he will approach this thing with a mind which is ever young. The Minister of State represents a constituency which I used to represent, and I have no doubt he has seen the teen-agers in that constituency wearing the blouse-type garments. I hope that next time he goes up there he will be able to look at those teen-agers wearing those blouse-type garments without a sense of remorse that they are having to pay more for them as a result of the activities of himself and his right hon. Friends.
When we turn to group A 5, also referred to by my hon. Friend, containing trousers, jodhpurs, bib-and-brace overalls and kilts, this really is too wide a category. I join with my hon. Friend in regretting that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not on the Government Front Bench to join in the discussion on this. I am not sure that we ought not to move to report Progress to call attention to his absence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that before the Government put this item in the Bill they had full consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and got his agreement to this, which I—not as a Scotsman, but as a Yorkshireman, who is supposed to be half way there—would consider to be an iniquitous proposal.
There are, as there are bound to be in such a scheme—and I readily concede this to the right hon. Gentleman—several anomalies. I hope that, as a result of the representations made by some of the trade, and as a result of the arguments adduced in this Committee, the Government will make proposals to get rid of some of these anomalies. Perhaps the Chancellor will forgive me if I mention only one of these to him. It may have been brought to his attention already, because it is a very serious one. It indicates the kind of difficulty which is bound to arise with such a scheme. Fortunately, it is a difficulty which can be removed by the simple process of putting down an Amendment, either by my hon. Friends and myself or by the Government. The anomaly I have in mind is the extraordinary contrast between the tax positions of lined and unlined overcoats, for instance, and also lined and unlined jackets.
Perhaps the Committee will bear with me for a moment if I give two examples. I take an overcoat 42 in. in length, and first give the figures for a fully lined overcoat, with which I will then compare the unlined overcoat. In both cases the overcoat is identical apart from the lining. In both cases I am assuming the use of cloth at 20s. a yard. Taking the 42 in. overcoat, fully lined, the cloth at 20s. a yard is £2 13s. 4d.; trimming costs £1 2s. 5d.; cutting and making, 19s. 9½d., giving a total of £4 15s. 6½d. The selling price is £5 19s. 6d.; a 20 per cent. uplift to bring it to the statutory wholesale

value—the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the arguments about the uplift—is £1 3s. 11d., giving a total of £7 3s. 5d. Now the D figure for that is £6 10s., which means that Purchase Tax is carried on the difference between the wholesale value of £7 3s. 5d. and the D figure of £6 10s.; in other words, Purchase Tax is applied on the difference of 13s. 5d. which at 33⅓ per cent. is roughly 4s. 6d. The total price, including Purchase Tax, is about £6 4s.
An overcoat 42 in. in length not so lined gives very similar figures. The cloth is £2 13s. 4d.; trimming is 15s. 8d., because there is no lining to be done; cutting and making is 18s. 3½d., because it is a simpler job, giving a total cost of £4 7s. 3½d. The selling price is cheaper than the other at £5 9s. 3d.—and I should be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman these figures afterwards to have them studied—the 20 per cent. uplift to bring it to the statutory wholesale value is £1 1s. 10d., giving a total of £6 11s. 1d.
But here one gets the contrast. The D figure in this case is not £6 10s. but £2 5s., the coat being unlined, which leaves a difference between the wholesale value and the D figure of £4 6s. Id. The tax, of course, is 33⅓ per cent. of that difference, which is about £1 8s., compared with the Purchase Tax previously of only 4s. 6d. So the total price, including Purchase Tax, is £6 17s. 3d. for the unlined overcoat; whereas the price, including Purchase Tax, for the lined overcoat is not £6 17s. 3d. but £6 4s. In other words, the lined overcoat costs 13s or 14s. less than the unlined overcoat.
There is a very simple case, and there are others. Of course, the shopkeeper or retailer, or for that matter the wholesaler, has the very greatest difficulty in explaining to customers exactly why it is that a lined overcoat costs less than an unlined overcoat, and it makes it impossible to sell the unlined overcoat; the customer thinks that the retailer is swindling him, there are all kinds of suspicions, and he walks out of the shop. Exactly similar illustrations might be given, but I do not propose to weary the Committee with the same kind of detailed figures.
I could give exactly similar illustrations of the short coat not exceeding 42 inches in length where by a similar process the price, including Purchase Tax, is £4 12s. 4d. for a fully lined coat. The


total price for an unlined coat of exactly the same attributes, apart from the fact that it is unlined, is £4 16s. 8d. In other words, the unlined jacket cost 4s. 4d. more than the lined jacket. The reason for that is that the lined jacket attracts Purchase Tax of only 7s. 4d., and the unlined jacket, because of the very low D figure for unlined garments, carries 16s. 11d. Purchase Tax; and once again, in the case of the short jacket as in the case of the overcoat, it is necessary for the shopkeeper to explain to the customer why it is that for two otherwise identical garments produced on the same day, in the same factory, of the same woollen material and perhaps by the same work-people, the customer has to pay more for the unlined than he has to pay for the lined.
There we have, I think, a very simple anomaly, and I hope that the Minister will very quickly get up and tell us that this is one of the anomalies he is going to remove. If it is not possible for him to tell us that tonight—because this may have been or may not have been brought to his attention—I hope that he will study that case and any other anomalies which hon. Members may bring to his attention, and that we shall have an assurance that some of these anomalies will be put right.
I could quite easily, but I do not propose to weary the Committee by so doing, produce a considerable number of other examples, both of anomalies as between one garment and another or of cases which do involve a very serious increase in the cost of living to the consumer, due to the fact that, whereas the Utility goods were previously tax-free, now a large proportion of the better class ex-Utility goods will carry a considerable rate of tax. I know that the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is one of the results of the abolition of the Utility scheme and introduction of the D scheme, and I hope that he is not going to argue on the lines of the Financial Secretary last week when we were discussing furniture, and say, "I am very sorry but, of course, you can get some other goods at a lower rate of tax: or you must not mind paying tax on things previously tax-free."
The right hon. Gentleman knows from his own constituency and on information he has, as we all know in all parts of the Committee, that a very large section of the community has up to now been buy-

ing Utility garments and nothing but Utility garments. I am sure that this is even true of a large section of hon. Members in this Committee, certainly on this side and, quite possibly, on the other side of the Committee as well. All those who have been in that position—and many people have gone for the higher priced Utility goods because they were clothing of real value and gave some assurance of long-wearing quality—are now forced by the Schedule and by this scheme to pay more for those goods, and this is going to be very costly for many families.
We have appealed to the Government to drop this scheme and to drop Purchase Tax altogether on textiles. These appeals have fallen on deaf ears, and it would be wrong and out of order for me now to go back to those items, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that these individual D levels in the first group of this Schedule, which is all that we are debating at the present time, will cause real hardship to many families.
I hope that when he replies, he will tell us that in the case of every one of our Amendments and of one or two Amendments standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite relating to this matter, he is going to put up the D level to the figure we propose, which broadly corresponds to the old Utility figure, and that he is going to relieve the anxieties of thousands of families all over the country who have been faced with the situation of having to pay taxes on goods which for the last seven or eight years have been tax-free.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think that we should all be grateful to the Chair for allowing this group of items that are to be subject to Purchase Tax under the D scheme to be discussed together, because now is the opportunity to discuss the general principle and also to point out certain anomalies; and I am grateful to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for listening to these anomalies.
I hope that the Chancellor will be able, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has said, to indicate that he has found it possible to give way to the arguments that have been raised, and to set the D points in general higher, so as to enable many


of the goods that previously came into the Utility classes and which are now no longer to be tax free to be relieved of tax. If, of course, that is not possible, it will be undoubtedly because of the financial position of the country.
It was inherent in the D scheme from the start, in accordance with the terms of reference given to the Douglas Committee, that the same amount of revenue should be raised by the Schedules as was raised under the old Purchase Tax scheme. Indeed, in their Report, paragraph 97, the Committee stated:
We therefore feel that the loss of revenue would have to be made good by setting D below top Utility prices…
The question, therefore, that the Minister has to decide is whether he is going to adhere to the plan of the previous Government and maintain the original amount of revenue that was being obtained under the Purchase Tax scheme—

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman really cannot argue like that. This point has been dealt with on a number of occasions in previous debates. When any Government sets up a Committee to deal with that tax question, it always has to produce proposals which will give the same amount of revenue. A Government knows that if it does not do that, some interest will come forward and make a strong case for a reduction. If the hon. Gentleman is ever Chancellor of the Exchequer—which will not happen for a very long time—he will find that any committees he sets up operate on that basis. When they produce their report, it is a matter for the Chancellor himself to decide what his revenue requirements are going to be.
The action of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in setting up that committee last year did not mean that he had decided for all time to adhere to this level of Purchase Tax revenue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has pointed out several times, the fact that the textile industries have been caught up in this tremendous depression since that time would be a reason for change, even if there had been such a decision a year ago.

Mr. Macpherson: Supposing that it was admitted that the Chancellor was in-

variably bound to indicate that he must get the same revenue out of any new scheme as was obtained under the old one, it still has to be remembered that the position of the country now is very much worse than it was at the time when the Douglas Committee was set up, and that we require to ensure that we get sufficient revenue this year and to ensure also, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, that the main basis of the Budget should be maintained, which is quite simply that there should be the same amount of consumer goods available for distribution in this country as there was last year and not more.
That being the basis, it is very difficult to urge my right hon. Friend to give way on this point. Yet, if he finds it possible, there are undoubtedly great advantages in doing so. I leave that point there, because what has been argued from the other side is, in the main, that the D points should be raised in certain classes of goods. The classes have no doubt been worked out in order to put into one group the goods which are comparable in use or price, or both.
A very good case was made out for blazers. That is an instance of an article which appears to have been put in a certain group with which it has not a very close affinity. The blazer is used mainly either by secondary schoolchildren or by sportsmen. There is a very strong case for relieving parents of as much expenditure as possible on blazers and for not putting an additional tax on them.
It certainly appears that the kilt has been lumped in with a number of articles with which it is in no way comparable. After all, a kilt and a bib-and-brace overall can scarcely be described as interchangeable. There is really no basis of comparison between the two. For one thing, a kilt costs three or four times as much as any other article in the group, with the possible exception of jodhpurs, and it certainly costs a great deal more than jodhpurs.
That is no reason for taxing the kilt more; it is not a luxury merely because it costs three or four times as much as the other articles. Indeed, the burden falls particularly on pipe bands. Few collieries, municipalities and branches of the British Legion have not their pipe bands. The tax will also fall heavily on


Rover Scouts in Scotland who wear the kilt.
The kilt lasts much longer than trousers do, but that is not a reason for taxing it more either. Even if a kilt does last three or four times longer, if it is Utility kilt it should be tax-free just as Utility trousers are. If trousers of a certain grade are tax free, a kilt made of equivalent material should also be tax free; for even if it lasts three times as long as the trousers last, three times zero remains zero and so the tax on the kilt should be zero.
The main point is that the general principle laid down by the Douglas Committee—and, I think, accepted by the Government—is that the tax should be determined by fixing D by reference to the median price. It is clear that all kilts will be well above the median price and all will, therefore, be subject to Purchase Tax. That is why my hon. Friends and I thought it desirable to give the kilt an entirely separate classification, in the same way as thigh length leggings are given an entirely different classification.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward an important argument. He has just said that all kilts will be above the median price. That is obviously self-contradictory in the sense that all kilts cannot be above the median price for kilts. It is certainly true that all kilts will be above the median price for the group including kilts. We are one with him on the subject of the kilt. In order to help the Committee, can he tell us what he would regard, if he accepts the Douglas Report, as a median price of a kilt or the price of a median kilt?

Mr. Macpherson: If I said that all kilts would be above the median price I meant that they would be above the price which has been fixed as the median price for the group. We are talking about group 5:
Trousers…overall trousers, oilskin trousers, plus-fours, breaches, jodhpurs, kilts and bib-and-brace overalls…
These articles of Class A material are fixed at 45s. per article. I am advised that the lowest possible makers' price at which one could get a kilt is £6 10s., and that is of Cheviot type, which is not very much worn for kilt purposes, certainly not by bands, for it is very much too bulky. The lowest possible makers' prices, I am assured, are £9 10s. for Saxony and £12 for worsted.
My hon. Friends and I have not been exceedingly generous in suggesting that the D point for the kilt should be £7 10s. That would be equivalent to a selling price of about £10. I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade the Chancellor to follow his own principle here and to fix the D point for the kilt by reference to the median price. He will make many people on the other side of the Border very happy if he will agree to this Amendment.

Miss Bacon: While I have a personal interest in women's clothes and hope to move some Amendments later in the Schedules, I have also a strong constituency interest in men's clothes. Thousands of my constituents are engaged in making men's clothes.
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) stressed the consumer's point of view in regard to these Amendments. While we have a very serious slump in textiles and in the clothing industry generally at present, it is important to remember that acceptance of the D levels will mean a great increase in the cost of living.
Let me see what these D figures do in the case of a man's suit. Under the D scheme as set out in the Schedules, the only three-piece suit of men's wear which will be tax free is one that costs £9 14s. or less. I do not quite know how this fits in with the median price. It seems to me that in the past the median price of a man's three-piece suit has been much higher than that figure.
It means that anyone who buys a suit costing under £9 14s. will get it tax free. These D figures also mean that anyone who buys a man's suit costing more than £25 will get a reduction. The serious point is that men's suits costing from £10 to £16, which are the most popular kind of men's suits, of which the trade sells most, will bear an increase ranging from approximately £1 to £2 because of Purchase Tax.
8.30 p.m.
Various anomalies have been pointed out tonight. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton mentioned the question of linings, because in my talks with the trade I find that this is a very difficult problem. My right hon. Friend has given examples,


which I do not wish to repeat, showing how unfair these D levels are in respect of the extra amount which is charged for lined goods.
I should like to put before the Chancellor one other anomaly and discrepancy which runs throughout the whole range of these made-up clothes. I refer to the great discrepancy there is between the change in the price of cloth and the change in the price of clothes. I will give one example to illustrate what I mean. Under the old Utility scheme a certain type of worsted cloth, specification 227A/ 1 of 55-inch width was 21s. 11d. per yard. That was the top Utility level. Under the D scheme this has increased in price to 22s. 2d.
The amazing thing, however, is that under the old Utility scheme the wholesale price of a coat made of that cloth was £8 16s. 9c. whereas under the new D scheme a coat made of that cloth is reduced in price to £6 10s. It will be seen that while the D price of the cloth has risen the D line for a coat made of that cloth has decreased considerably, which seems to suggest that the D figure for coats—and this applies also to suits—is much too low having regard to the price of the cloth from which it is made. I could give many examples not only in respect of men's wear but of women's wear to show that this runs throughout the whole of these Schedules.
I wish to put to the Financial Secretary one further point. I am afraid that the prices charged to the consumers will be much higher than those we have reckoned as being attributable to the increase because of the D scheme. I say that because I wish to direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to what was said in the "Fortnightly Review" of the Association of Retail Chambers of Trade a few weeks ago. It was stated that it would be a good practice to add Purchase Tax to the cost and reckon the profit on that cost. In other words, it seems that the trade is probably going to reckon its profits not only on the wholesale price but on the wholesale price plus Purchase Tax. That will mean a further increase.
I wish to conclude with one general remark. I believe that up to now the public as a whole has not felt the full effect of these D figures because there is a slump, which we hope is a temporary

one, in the textile trade and prices have decreased because of unemployment and the slump. We hope that that slump will not last, and while it is true that certain goods in the shops have decreased in price in the last few weeks, that has been for a reason which we all regret. When we get back to normal prices those figures will mean a great increase in the cost of living of all the people of our country. I hope that an announcement is to be made that the D figures will be lifted considerably because, if not, we shall experience a great increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) because, as I think she knows, I have certain interests in an indirect way in common with her in my capacity as President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce and we share something of the problems of the clothing trade. Also because my own constituency, Shipley, is renowned throughout the world in textiles and, as the Chancellor knows, I am deeply concerned over this question of the D level on textiles.
I do not intend to intervene for long. because I think the argument has been well deployed. I agreed with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). I think it was a reasonable case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to meet it in some measure. I have four Amendments down myself, which no doubt has not escaped the attention of hon. Members opposite, in this very group at slightly higher figures. I have heard so much about my right hon. Friend having an open mind that I thought I would give him plenty of scope. I am sure he will not object if I say that up to date it has been rather more like a closed shop," but I hope we shall get a peep inside tonight.
I must make myself clear, as I have done in my constituency, that I am determined, as I was in the textile debate in March, to fight this thing as hard as I can to the very last ditch. But I will accept the decision of my right hon. Friend. As I have said publicly before, there is no question of my voting against the Government on this matter.
On the other hand, I do appeal with all the force I can to my right hon. Friend


to decide now. I particularly wish him to decide now. I want no question of this being put off to Report stage or Third Reading. This delay has done almost more harm than the price level itself, and he would have been doing a great thing for the textile trade if, instead of having an open mind, we could have had from him a decision after the representations from the trade more than a month ago. Let us have the decision now. I will accept it, because I know he is reasonable. I have privately and publicly badgered him on this point, and so have other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and I am sure he has given careful thought to it.
But what I do not want to hear tonight is the type of remark I have heard before, particularly from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, that it is not very much, that it is only a matter of 2s. or 3s. or even 1s. 6d. That is not relevant at all. What we must understand about this problem is that the public is tax conscious. Even if it is only a matter of 2d. they will not have it at the present moment. That is one of the things which has added to the depth of the freeze. We want that freeze melted, and I still believe we can do it.
I am not impressed by the fact that two-thirds of the textiles are untaxed and therefore there is no argument for a reduction. I am not convinced because psychologically it would be a weapon of great value to convince the public that it is the time to buy, and I am honestly sure it is the time to buy. But they will not do so as long as we have these doubts and thoughts about it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will show us that courage which I have respected ever since the days when I served in the Cambridge Union under his Presidency many years ago. I am sure that he will be definite here tonight.
The case put up by the Opposition is reasonable, and the D level they suggest is good. I consider their suggestions concerning women's garments is too high, but they are right for the men's section. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will make a decision which will benefit the textile trade as a whole and the consumers who look for a lead in this matter.

Mrs. White: We are all glad to have the vigorous support of the bon. Mem-

ber for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), and I saw the Chancellor wilting under his attack.
It would appear to me that the group which we are discussing illustrates very well the point I tried to make earlier when we were discussing Clause 8. We have in several of these items, in fact in most of them except the first, a conglomeration of objects which are very ill-matched. The Chancellor must address himself to this principle. Either we must have a more discriminatory classification, or we must accept a higher D level for the entire group which runs through the Schedule as a whole.
It is incongruous to have grouped together articles which form part of a tailor-made suit and articles of a sports type in which there is obviously far less workmanship. I mention, for example, the fourth item on page 74. It might reasonably be argued that the D line of £1 1s. per article is suitable for slipovers, which are sleeveless garments and do not take up very much material, but unsuitable for a properly tailored waistcoat and even for a cardigan or a sweater, or a blouse-type jacket.
The Chancellor should make it clear to the Committee—and it might save a good deal of time later on if he did—what his attitude is to be. If one is to include these incongruously assorted articles, then one must accept a higher D line. Otherwise one is putting some articles in a position which is quite unreasonable to the consumer and which, I think, has already aroused a certain amount of disquiet and possibly resentment in sections of the trade.
In this arrangement of the Schedule, it might have been very much more useful had we taken the section on cloth first. It seems to be rather unrealistic to be discussing made-up garments before we have discussed the appropriate D level for the cloth out of which those garments are to be fashioned. It might have been much more for the convenience of the Committee had the Schedules been so arranged that we could have discussed this point first. It would be out of order to discuss now the D level on cloth, and I do not propose to do so. I simply state that it leads to some anomalies because we have not had an opportunity of discussing that item first.
I should like to make a general plea on the question of D levels for the majority of articles included in this group. The Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself are modest Amendments. We have not gone anything like as far as the hon. Member for Shipley. We have had considerable discussion with the trade, especially those hon. Members representing constituencies in Leeds which are closely concerned with the men's clothing trade. We think that our Amendments are reasonable.
I wish to make a plea in connection with almost all the articles included in this group which are articles of men's wear and boys' wear. Although children's wear is excluded from the scheme, we know that some boys grow quickly and reach man's measurements before they reach man's age and, more important, man's earning power. Many of the garments are really boys' garments. They are almost all of a kind in which quality is essential.
I know from my own experience, and from that of my friends who have to budget very closely indeed for the requirement of their families, that nothing is more discouraging than to feel that because of increased prices one cannot buy a garment which will give really satisfactory wear and service. If the Chancellor persists in maintaining these very low D levels for some of these articles such as overcoats and suits, trousers, and so on, it will mean that there will be far more work for the mothers of the country, who will have to try to patch, to repair and make do with poorer quality garments.
8.45 p.m.
Clearly, what will happen, in order that the garments may be sold at all if they are subject to a higher tax, is that the manufacturers will economise in the quality of the linings, for example, and also in the workmanship, and that will mean that these garments, which should have a long life, because many of them will be subject to very hard wear, will deteriorate and require patching and repairing, which will be a very great discouragement to the housewife.
I feel that on nearly all the garments included in this group, the question of

quality is of very great importance, and it is particularly unfortunate that the class of garment which is being most severely dealt with under the proposed D level is that class which included the better quality Utility garments. It was precisely that quality of garment which the careful and responsible housewife and mother tried to buy for her family, because she realised, when buying overcoats, suits and jackets, that it was false economy to buy the cheapest.
Under the previous Utility scheme, it was possible to obtain very satisfactory quality garments at reasonable prices and tax free. All concerned with the family aspect of the matter feel very strongly that it would be most unfortunate if we were to accept the D line which is proposed in this Schedule, and I therefore hope that the Chancellor will be able to accept some of the Amendments which have been put down by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Harold Davies: On looking down the list of items in the Schedule, I must say that the Chancellor reminds me of an old Welsh parson who used to pray once a week and, being very devout, said. "Oh Lord, I do not ask you to give me money; all I ask you to do is to show me where it is, and I will do the rest myself." It seems to me that the Chancellor has a certain interest in some industries in my division because we produce quite a lot of knitwear. We have heard much about Lancashire and the cotton industry, and rightly and justly so, because that is one of the paramount industries in this country by means of which we pay for the food that we import.
I would remind the Chancellor that there are some places like Leek in these islands which produce very good material and which are interested in silk and rayon and knitwear. I was rather chagrined to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was unable to press his Amendment upon the Chancellor when he asked for silk materials to be excluded from certain taxation. I would make my plea for the articles listed in class A 4 dealing with blouse-type jackets, waistcoats, cardigans, jerseys, sweatovers, pullovers, slip-overs, and bed jackets.
All these things are produced in Leek, and I believe that the D level is far too low. I look at the matter from both


points of view—that of the consumer and that of the manufacturers—and I make the plea to the Chancellor to have a look at the D level, in this case fixed at £1 1s., and to see whether he cannot lift it up at least to £1 15s. I do not want to detain the Committee, because we are not trying to filibuster; we are trying to help the Government all we possibly can.
If the Chancellor, together with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, is afraid that all this may end in a terrible inflationary situation, and if some right hon. and hon. Members opposite are afraid to go into the Division Lobby to vote for the Amendments they have put on the Order Paper, may I suggest a way out of the difficulty? I suggest that the Chancellor should earmark some of the Post-War Credits as textile coupons, and that he should pay them out to the value of £5 per person to be spent specifically on textiles in Lancashire, Leek and Leeds. Having made that suggestion, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear—although he could not do so in the case of his own back benchers—to concede a little uplift in the D level of the knitwear made in Leek.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): I wish to say a few words from the consumer's point of view. I remember a couple of Budgets ago that I got into a lot of trouble when criticising the cost of Utility wear, particularly children's footwear, which, of course, we are not discussing at the moment. It is obvious that, as a result of the D scheme, not only will there be a rise in the cost of wearing apparel, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) rightly pointed out, there will be a decrease in quality. We shall certainly get a range of clothing that will be below the D level, but it will not be worth buying.
Criticisms were made of the Utility scheme because of the prices charged. Under that scheme margins of profits were provided which none of us fully accepted, and many of us thought that they allowed the manufacturers and the retailers too much profit. I think we are likely to get an even worse deal as a consequence of the D scheme.
I want to remind the Chancellor of the position as it affects parents. Owing

to full employment in the last seven years, parents have been able to buy the best quality Utility clothing for their children. It seems to me that the suggested change will prevent housewives from buying some of the quality clothing for their children which they have hitherto been able to purchase. Though I am here more concerned with children's clothing, the same criticism can be made in respect of adult clothing. People will not be able to continue buying the quality goods which hitherto they have been able to purchase under the Utility scheme.
It is from that point of view that many of us are worried. Certainly I am worried. Even under the Utility scheme a good quality coat for a child of seven, eight or nine years of age cost £5 or £6. The D scheme does not cater for that. People who are able to buy coats of reasonable quality for their children today will find that they are taxed under this scheme. The price will be increased and this will make it much more difficult for the average mother to purchase textile goods for her children. This is being done when everybody is crying out that we should maintain and increase the volume of consumption to help the textile industry. This scheme will result in under-consumption because of the effect on price levels of this re-arrangement of taxation.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Although we have been discussing 15 Amendments together and one would have supposed that discussion would have been a little discursive, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to admit that it has been realistic and constructive. I hope very much that as a result of it we shall make some progress in obtaining some sort of concession in respect of the D scheme.
The Committee will be well aware that we on this side were anxious to get rid of Purchase Tax on textiles altogether. We have made two attempts to do that unsuccessfully and now, of course, we have had to fall back on what we regard as being a second best and to consider what sort of concession we can obtain during the Committee stage of this Bill.
Obviously, we had a number of alternative courses of action before us. At one time we considered the method,


which has been suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) in the case of boots and shoes, of altering the rate of taxation. That, if it could be obtained, would be most acceptable. But we had one objection to it in that we felt that such a concession would spread relief over the whole range of goods, including what were previously non-Utility goods, whereas we preferred giving relief to those which previously have been Utility goods and which will now carry taxation.
Therefore, we adopted the method of putting down Amendments the effect of which is to raise the D level to that of the top price level under the old Utility scheme. Obviously, having accepted that principle, we had to put down a large number of Amendments in order that there should be no disparity between the categories in the Schedules of the Bill.
Tonight we have heard a great deal about the interests of the trade and of the consumers. We have not heard a great deal about the interests of the workers in these industries and yet, of course, it is from that point of view that all of us are approaching this problem as well as from the point of view of the interests of the consumers and the industry as a whole. I confess that there are a number of notable omissions from the Order Paper. Apart from the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who spoke with such conviction and so convincingly tonight, there have been no Amendments from hon. Members opposite representing Yorkshire constituencies, although production in Yorkshire is between 15 per -cent. and 30 per cent. down on last year.
Another notable omission is that there is no Amendment at all on the Order Paper at this point in the names of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland. It is true that later on this part of the Schedule there is one Amendment dealing with linen, but that has been put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens). It is only on the second part of the Schedule that Northern Irishmen appear to have woken up and to have put down Amendments dealing with the parlous condition of the linen industry in Northern Ireland at the present time.
9.0 p.m.
I think we are inclined to forget that there are more unemployed in Northern Ireland today than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the situation is very serious, and because hon. Members opposite are failing to take advantage of their opportunities the Northern Ireland Labour Party are calling for the scheduling of Ulster as a development area. I hope the residents in Northern Ireland will remember the way that they have been let down by hon. Members opposite in this debate tonight.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: We have been in constant consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland and the various bodies representing the linen industry over there. and we are awaiting the Chancellor's statement later on with great interest.

Mr. Greenwood: If that is the case, I cannot for the life of me think why the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put down Amendments to one part of the Schedule and not to the other. No doubt that is one of the things which may be obscure to the rest of the Committee but is perfectly clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
There is another much more important omission, and that is the omission of any action on this part of the Schedule by hon. Members representing Lancashire constituencies. The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), is now well established as Lancashire Conservatism's "grand old Duke of York." Having marched his forces up to the top of the hill twice, he has even omitted to do that tonight, no doubt to save himself the trouble of marching them down again after another ignominious withdrawal on their part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) referred earlier to this scheme as being what he called the product of a bureaucratic mind with a passion for tidiness and no regard for sociological effects. Indeed, as one has listened to this discussion tonight, I think there has echoed in one's mind the point of view put forward by many representatives of the trade, that it is a pity that no working draper or outfitter was represented on the Douglas Committee. One feels, too, that it is a tremendous pity that there does not seem to have been adequate


consultation between the Government and the various trade organisations before this scheme was put into its final form.
It seems impossible to justify some of the extraordinary anomalies which hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee have pointed out tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) tells us that unlined jackets and overcoats are more expensive than lined jackets and overcoats because of the operation of this fantastic and ridiculous scheme. We gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), that overcoats and suits which were previously tax-free are now going to carry between £1 and £2 in tax. All down the list one can find anomalies and inconsistencies of that kind.
I want to endorse the view of the hon. Member for Shipley when he castigated the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the delay that there has been in announcing the final policy of the Government in this respect. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has really been trying to be helpful, appreciative and understanding of the industry's difficulties, but certainly in going on from a debate on textiles to the Finance Bill, and from the Finance Bill to the debate we had the other night on Purchase Tax on textiles, and then again on to the debate we had on Thursday night—all these promises of some sort of vague help in the future have done harm to the industry. I hope, as the hon. Member for Shipley hopes, that at last tonight we are really going to learn what is in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is another point on which I support the hon. Member for Shipley, and that is that I hope we shall not hear tonight any speeches from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs like the one we had from him the other night. Our point of view is simple, and it is this. If it is difficult to sell an article for £5 it will be much more difficult to sell it for £5 plus £1 tax. No amount of obscure reasoning on the part of the Minister of State will persuade me that that is an illogical point of view.
What an extraordinary conglomeration of articles this group covers. Some of them have been dealt with by my hon. Friends. There is item No. 1, which deals with overcoats. We are told that

that also includes duffle coats and those coats which the employees of the Westminster City Corporation wear when we see them washing the streets of this great City in the early mornings when we go home; but when we look at the document issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, we find that the list includes not only duffle coats and donkey coats—which, I think, is the name of the coats worn by the employees of the Westminster City Corporation—but also:
a wide range of academic, ecclesiastical, legal, etc., garments, e.c., cassocks, surplices and gowns.
So we have duffle coats, donkey coats, surplices and academic gowns all lumped together under one quite arbitrary D level.
Then we go to item No. 3, which includes not only schoolboys' blazers but tacklers' vests—whatever tacklers' vests are. Then there is this curious question of the kilt. May I say that we on this side of the Committee are wholeheartedly in support of the Scottish contingent, which already seems to have left the field of battle—though I see that one Member is still with us, and we are all happy to see that. I think it is a pity to associate kilts only with Scotsmen, because kilts are also an Irish form of dress and any concession made in that respect will, I am sure, be equally welcomed by hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland—even those who have not yet found it convenient to take part in this discussion.
On going through this list, one finds that the Government's proposals are going to penalise wide sections of the general public—not only workmen but clergymen, school boys, Scotsmen, Irishmen, cyclists, and all kinds of young people who take part in all kinds of sport, such as tennis, rowing and a large range of similar activities. It is because we cannot find any consistent principle behind the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman that we shall certainly take the opportunity tonight—unless the right hon. Gentleman has at last some real, positive, definite and specific concession to make—to divide the Committee on the Amendments in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself and also the Amendments standing in the names of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had a considerable debate at the opening of the discussion of the Fourth Schedule of this complicated Measure. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) quoted a clergyman, whom he compared with me. In passing, I should like to say that the clergyman's surplice and other religious clothing for the first time gets D provision—and I do not use "D" in any damnation sense. It gets tax concessions under this Bill. That is the first mistake into which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has fallen. He misunderstood the religious fervour and the humane considerations of Her Majesty's Government in introducing some of this religious clothing into this Bill.
I should like to answer the story of the hon. Member for Leek with one of my own. I am told of a clergyman who prayed on his knees on Sundays and on his neighbours for the rest of the week. If the hon. Member for Leek would like to take charge of that story and compare that clergyman with the Chancellor, I think it would be a very apt parallel.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who opened this debate, said that there had been no particular example of filibustering. I quite accept that. I think everybody has been perfectly reasonable, and I hope that when I have finished my speech we shall be able to make further progress so that we do not sit too late tonight. Whether we sit late tomorrow night will not depend so much on filibustering. The Government are determined to finish this question of Purchase Tax tomorrow evening, and if we do not have filibustering we may well be able to do so. I prefer to think of this exercise in the words of the hon. Member for Leek as a "sweatover," which is a garment I have never heard of but which, I understand, is made in Leek and which is most suitable to us in the course of these debates.
We come to the very contentious question of kilts. Here again, there has been some criticism of the fact that my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, well known as one of the most vulnerable of Her Majesty's Ministers, is not present with us tonight. I do not want Scottish hon. Members to imagine that that is any sign of disrespect because

I have had the closest contact with my right hon. Friend and with my own fellow Scots. I do not, however, wish the Scottish nation to regard £2 5s. as a general criterion by which the value of their nationality is to be judged. I fully accept that there are many kilts of very expensive quality. What I want to make clear is this: that for the first time, kilts are brought within the protection of the D scheme and, so far as they get relief, they are therefore better off, whether, as an hon. Member said, divided or not, than they ever were before.
It is true, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), said, that Northern Ireland Members have been closely in touch with the Administration and have attempted to put forward their point of view to the best of their ability. The fact that they have not taken part in the debate is a matter which I regard as one of great credit to them, because if we all took part in the debate, including all Scottish hon. Members, I can assure the Committee that we should be here all tonight and all tomorrow night as well. The fact that they have not taken part in the debate and yet have put their case is a great credit to Northern Ireland.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I am not interested in the kilt as a kilt, because it may be made of anything, but I have some interest in the material which provides the finest kilt—that is. tartan. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say something about tartan? I mentioned the subject in a previous speech.

Mr. Butler: I think it depends which tartan the hon. Gentleman means. The answer is, quite seriously, that the question of cloth must come up at a later stage in our debate and it would be out of order to raise the subject on this Amendment. I will bear the point in mind, however.
It is quite clear that this debate has referred mainly to the proposition that the D level should be raised above the general median figure which was agreed as a result of the Douglas Report and should be placed above the old Utility scale. That theme has seemed to underly a great many of the Amendments which are on the Order Paper at present.
I had thought, in the course of previous debates on this subject—and some comments were made on some occasions, and some on others—that it had been accepted that we cannot go back to the old Utility scheme. The reasons for this were cogently and clearly expressed, not by Her Majesty's Government but by an independent Committee appointed by my predecessor, namely the Douglas Committee. There were, therefore, three courses open, to one of which the hon. Member for Rossendale referred tonight. The first was to abolish the tax on textiles; and if I were to discuss that I should be out of order. Furthermore, we have already referred to it in previous debates. It would have cost something between £80 million and £100 million, which was more revenue than we could afford, and that course has already been rejected.
Perhaps the simplest course of all in dealing with the problem with which the Government were faced would have been a flat rate tax, probably at a lower rate, on all textiles and perhaps other goods in the D sphere—a course which was cogently and eloquently recommended by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who has taken so great a part in our debates in such a constructive manner. This is a course which I think the trade as a whole might have preferred, though hon. Members must remember that such a course, by the deliberate lowering of the incidence of the tax, would have a very heavy immediate reaction on retail stocks, which is another matter to which we have to turn when we come to the new Clauses, and I think it would have been resented in that respect by the trade.
I think this course of having a single low tax would have helped the export of high quality goods but it would have removed from the exemption from Purchase Tax many essential garments which the lower income groups have enjoyed free of tax for over 10 years.
I should like hon. Members opposite to realise that, however much they may criticise this scheme, it really comes from their own stable, from the Committee which they themselves appointed. Whether they like it or not, it is not a scheme brought forward politically; it is a scheme honestly brought forward as a result of an inquiry by a committee. Furthermore, this scheme still retains a

large variety of cloths and garments, of the type to which these Amendments refer, outside the tax range under the D level. It was for that reason that I rejected a flat rate tax, although I have been very glad, and shall be glad in the future, to give every consideration to that sort of taxation, with all its simplicity.
9.15 p.m.
The Government adopted the D scheme despite its complications and the terrible Parliamentary difficulties which are involved. I should like to ask any observers of our Parliamentary institution whether they have ever seen such an opportunity for filibustering, time wasting or even genuine investigation of the details. I am asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, to evaluate exactly as a Minister of the Crown, upon whose shoulders are responsibilities of a somewhat heavy character outside dealing with the D scheme, between corduroy trousers and shorts. Frankly, if it were left to me I would not know the answer.
I think it is just as well to be quite frank with the Committee. If our constitution is going to impose upon Ministers an obligation to answer different matters of that sort, then our constitution will break down. I refer to some words of a great friend of all of us, the late Oliver Stanley, who took part in many debates on previous Finance Bills. He said he thought the danger of the Purchase Tax was that it might create a Dutch auction on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is a most dangerous subject to discuss, and that is why I have been so pleased at the spirit in which we have discussed it tonight.
What is the Government's general answer, therefore, to all the quite legitimate points, including the complicated point in the question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on lined coats and coats not lined? My reply to that point is that I must have a little more time to study it in detail and also the particulars which he is to send me. But what is the Government's answer to all these points about corduroy trousers, kilts, shorts, and the relationship between jackets and trousers? All these subjects I have lived with during the last few weeks, and while I am not an expert, I should like to give the Committee some indication of how we made up our minds.
We made up our minds by following the general philosophy and principle of the Douglas Committee, which was to take a genuine D at the median point. It may interest the Committee to know that we did not reach this decision in any haphazard manner but have a system behind us. The system involves us with a series of social surveys that were undertaken at various times. One was taken in May, 1951, when this Government were not even in office, and the other in November to December last and deals with the September-October purchases of housewives. The surveys into clothing expenditure were carried out by the Social Survey for the Central Statistical Office.
A random sample of 1,500 addresses was selected from each inquiry and a two-stage simplified scheme was used. The first stage was distributed between 60 and 70 administrative areas in Great Britain, including Scotland but not Northern Ireland. In each area a random sample of addresses was drawn from the original list. That shows that there is some basis for this scheme which is not political, and whether hon. Members agree with it or no, it was meant to be scientific.
Housewives were asked in these areas, and according to this system, to give an account of their purchases and of the price of the different goods that they bought. The result of that was a median principle which could be adopted for D and it is that general principle which has been inserted in this Bill and which we are now working.
I am not prepared at this stage to go back on that system, because I think we have something to stand on, and if once we get away from that we shall get into the most terrific mess and will get more inequality than hon. Members have pointed out in the course of these debates. Therefore, I maintain that it would be wrong to concede individual points about the Ds unless we are satisfied that there is a genuine grievance or abuse. I am afraid that on this Amendment I do not find that we can concede anything on the Ds. It is possible that on one or two later occasions—which I shall come to as we reach the blocks of Amendments with which they deal—we shall find an abuse which can be dealt with, but I am afraid I cannot on this one.
I come now to the general point raised by the Opposition, which is that they would like to raise the Ds above the old Utility level.

Mr. H. Wilson: Not above.

Mr. Butler: Up to the old Utility levels. My answer, in answering in advance anything the hon. Member for Leeds, West, may say, is that I believe it would cost between £30 million and £40 million to accept this on this Amendment and all the others. I am not able to spare that amount of money, and I do not believe that this move would help the lower income groups in this country.

Mr. Pannell: A few minutes earlier the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that he had lived with these things for many weeks. So have we. I have done some research on this, and we have not attempted to have a Dutch auction. I hope he will take it from me that in all our inquiries, when we approached the trade we asked them not to give us any political answers at all, but to give realistic answers which would bring it somewhere round about the top Utility level. I could give him the names and addresses of the firms to which we have gone. In none of the examples we have put forward have we gone above any of the old Utility schemes. If I may say so, it is not we who ask him to evaluate. He puts the Finance Bill before us and he asks us to evaluate.

Mr. Butler: I respect the methods employed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in attempting to arrive at an abstract truth on this, but I do not believe, taking one article against another, that we can get any better principle than that laid down by the Douglas Committee, namely, the median principle, which we have tried to adopt throughout. If we start taking different principles by contact, quite honourably, with different trades, I think we can get into worse trouble than we have here. Therefore, I think this method is probably fairer than any other in arriving at a level for the Ds.
I maintain that to raise the Ds would be not only too expensive, between £30 million and £40 million—and I would have to do it for one if I did it for another—but would also, I believe, be a move in the wrong direction. It would increase the disparities and the approxi-


mations which are inherent in the scheme as a whole.
I would remind the Committee—and I say this in a constructive spirit—that there are powers under the Bill to renew and alter the Ds by Order. I will give this undertaking: that this matter will always be kept under consideration, and, while I can give no date and therefore create no uncertainty, if there are difficulties at any time we can lay an Order and thereby correct a D if we find it to be wrong, apart from any which may arise on subsequent Amendments in which we think there is a grave case of abuse. I give that assurance in the spirit in which I hope it will be accepted.
I think that a move to raise the Ds, to take them back into the sphere in which we had too high a rate of tax on too narrow a range of goods—and it is remarkable to me to find how many, not only of traders and capitalists, but also of the workpeople have taken the view that unless we can reduce the tax on the quality range we shall not keep employment and encourage our exports—would be a move in the wrong direction.
I have therefore decided that, if I am to help the Committee and consumers, and traders in general, I must move in another direction. The hon. Member for Rossendale, in his clear speech, raised the point as to the direction in which we should move; and he said it was possible to move either in the direction of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), or in the direction of hon. Members opposite towards raising the Ds. Again, respecting the sincerity with which these matters are put forward, I have decided to follow the line suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East, and to move in the direction of reducing the rates rather than raising the Ds. I do this in the interest of the consumer and the interest of the trader.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) asked for a statement to be made tonight, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and others have also made other requests that such a statement should be made. In passing, I would say that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) moved an Amendment about silk. Owing to the financial

nature of the statement that I am about to make, I was unable to speak during the debate on that Amendment and had to remain utterly silent, and I must apologise to him if he was in any sort of embarrassment. The suggestions I have to make apply to silk as well as to the other matters with which I am dealing. They deal with the representations of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke from this side of the Committee.
I want to say that, in all the circumstances, the Government have decided to reduce the rate of 33℣ per cent. and 66⅔ per cent. on garments, footwear, gloves, cloth and household textiles by one-quarter; that is, the new rate will be 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. less, of course, the D allowances. This is to apply to all goods in groups 1 to 7 of the Purchase Tax Schedule and to group 9 (b) (iii)—travelling rugs. Hon. Members will see that this is almost a comprehensive reduction on nearly all articles under the D scheme.
The details will, of course, appear, because I have to move a Ways and Means Resolution, and I have had to consider whether to ask hon. Members to take that Ways and Means Resolution tonight, as we did in the Budget by simply passing around a blue paper, or to take what I think is the better and fairer course of putting it on the Order Paper as the first business tomorrow. I have decided to take the latter course—although according to Budget practice it would have been possible to take the former course—and to put it on the Order Paper and take this as first business tomorrow, in which case hon. Members will see its terms in the morning, and find that it applies to all groups in 1 to 7 and group 9 (b) (iii) of the Purchase Tax Schedule.
To avoid disturbance of trade, I have proposed that these changes should operate as from Wednesday, 14th May, and I estimate that the cost will be £17 million in a full year and for the remainder of this year—I have not got the exact figure—in view of the shorter time it will have to run, it will be something in the neighbourhood of £10 million. I hope that this move will help consumers generally and be in itself a contribution towards reducing the cost of living.

Mr. Jay: Does this reduction in rates include furniture as well as textiles?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question. I do not want to give a false answer, but I can give an answer in a few minutes to the right hon. Gentleman, or he will see it in the Resolution. I do not think that it applies to furniture because we have not yet made an Order for furniture, and the matter would have to be considered, judging from the debate on Clause 7, when furniture was referred to, as being a subject which we are at present discussing with the trade with a view to introducing a scheme. As to the question of the future of furniture, I will look into it to see that there is no unfair discrimination.
9.30 p.m.
I was saying that I hoped this would help consumers and the cost of living. I hope it will also give some certainty to the trade, and I hope that the textile industry will now know where it stands. I can give an assurance to that hard-stricken area that it would have been impossible for me to take action which did not apply to all those other commodities and articles; it would not only have been unfair, but it would have been unsound.
I sincerely feel their difficulties, as do the Government, and I hope that this in its small way may be some extra help to them, to the boot and shoe and the gloves areas and to all the other areas affected. They will know exactly where they stand and will know that we are moving in the right direction in a difficult time, namely, that we have reduced this tax, which affects the cost of living, within the bounds of the Budget and the position will be decided in the light of what we can afford in making a concession as large as we can manage.
I hope that this will have met the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens). I should have liked to consider a greater concession, but the Revenue does not allow it.
I should like to remind hon. Members that, apart from the Resolution which will be put on the Order Paper and can be considered first thing tomorrow, a new Clause will be tabled and, as far as I can see, this will have to be considered later in the Bill and it will, therefore, give another opportunity for con-

sidering the matter besides that given by the Resolution tomorrow. I hope that it will be possible to take the Resolution fairly briefly and to continue with our business on the rest of the Schedule.
This is the limit to which I can go. I hope the trade will accept it as such, and I hope that this concession, which applies almost to the whole range, will mean that we can shorten our debates by realising the help that is being given. In due course during the debates I shall be able to give some indication of the very great relief which this will be to the lower income groups in the purchases they will make of articles which may just fall within the level of the tax but which at the same time are of supreme importance to those whom we want to help most.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement, and I have no doubt that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends may wish to comment upon it immediately. As I understand it, we shall have an opportunity tomorrow of debating at any rate the greater part of what the Chancellor has said when we discuss the new Ways and Means Resolution which he is introducing, but I should like to make a few comments on what he has said and to give my immediate reactions to the announcement.
In the first place, the Opposition are glad that he has rejected the proposals for a flat-rate tax which would extend well below the present D levels. In our opinion, that would be a most retrograde step. It would clearly be a tax involving a heavier burden on people with lower incomes. There is no doubt that had the Chancellor contemplated any such thing it would have met with the most bitter opposition from this side of the Committee.
Secondly, I do not wish to discuss the proposal to abolish the tax altogether—we discussed that fully last Thursday, and I appreciate that it would be out of order—but one can perhaps at least comment on the Chancellor's new proposal by saying that it represents at least a small part of the loaf that we have been demanding. One-fifth of a loaf is better than none at all, and to that extent we welcome what the Chancellor has just told us.
However, I am bound to point out that there are some questions which I have to put and some criticism that I have to make about the decision. In the first place, I am not entirely clear from what the Chancellor has said what his attitude will be during the rest of our debates on the Fourth Schedule. I understood him to say that he would consider special cases, but he seemed to imply that there would not be very many special cases. I fancy that we shall be able to present to him some exceedingly strong cases.
There is, for instance, the case of boots and shoes. It is quite obvious that the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is virtually, I will not say worthless, of course, but it is worth very much less to the boot and shoe industry than the proposals which we have made. I have no doubt that my hon. and right hon. Friends will seek to draw attention to that and to persuade the Chancellor to make concessions there. There is the case of furnishing fabrics, where I think that the level of D is generally recognised in the trade and the Committee to be absurdly low. There is the case of gloves, where I believe the same applies. There are no doubt many others.

Mr. Dodds: Outsizes.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend mentions outsizes, which we were discussing this afternoon.
If we are to have a real opportunity of securing concessions in this matter as we go through the Schedule, then we unreservedly accept a fifth of the loaf, hoping to get a lot more of it. But if this is intended as a bait or a bribe to hold us off from demanding what we believe to be necessary, we certainly shall not fall for it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? There were, of course, two possible tactics. Either I could have retained my statement to a far later stage in our debates, and thereby, in my view, have made them very silly, because Members would not have known what was in the Government's mind, or I could have brought it to the front, as I have done, in order that the Committee might work against that background, which would be of considerable help. It does not preclude certain matters which involve things that are not quite right in the

scheme, and are still susceptible of Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman can really accept quite genuinely the bona fides of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am, of course, delighted to hear that. It means that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the certainty in which the textile industry would now be living are not quite so forceful as they might have appeared to be. From that angle I am very glad, because there is still a chance of reductions—that the certainty is not quite so absolute. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was leading us to think that it was.

Mr. Butler: In answer to that, I would say that it is very important for the trade, not so much for us here. The certainty ought to be pretty good by tomorrow night, when I hope to finish the Schedule, whatever the hour to which we have to sit.

Mr. Gaitskell: We hope that there will not only be complete certainty but certainty which satisfies us as well. For the moment uncertainty continues.
There is one major criticism we have to make of the particular decision which the Government have made, and this was foreshadowed very aptly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). If the Chancellor had £17 million to give away, and if in any case the uncertainty was to prevail until tomorrow night, I think it would have been rather more courteous to the Committee, and certainly more satisfactory to this side of the Committee, if the Chancellor had waited to hear the case to be made on the various individual items and groups. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Members opposite say "No," particularly the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse). He is now completely satisfied. He does not wish to press the case of his constitutents.

Captain Waterhouse: Wait and see.

Mr. Gaitskell: I shall wait and see with great interest what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does. If hon. Members want to press their constituency cases, why are they making such a noise when I protest about a decision being made in advance? I should have thought that, under the circumstances, it would have been very much better to have waited to hear the case as it was put forward.
But there is an even more serious objection, namely that if a concession of £17 million were given by increasing the value of D, and the Chancellor says that our concessions broadly speaking would have involved about twice that amount—I do not know how accurate those figures are, but of course I accept them—then we should at least have been sure that a whole range of goods would have been taken right out of the tax and that the people who were not previously paying tax would not have had to pay it.
Whereas, of course, the concession he has granted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale pointed out, really benefits far more the people who buy the more expensive garments and other articles. There is the same percentage reduction within the tax for everybody, and therefore on absolute terms it must bring greater benefits to those who pay the higher prices. So far as I know, that is quite simple and uncontroversial arithmetic. I cannot see that one can possibly dispute it. If we take the two ways, raising the value of D or reducing the rate of the tax, apart from any other consequences it may have, in the one case it means benefiting those who pay round about the top Utility level and, of course, it benefits a wide range, but in absolute terms it gives more and more benefit to those who buy the most expensive articles.

Mr. Ian Horobin: May we take it that the party opposite abandon the point that it is desirable to benefit the production in this country of high quality goods?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. We do not abandon that. We think a good case can be made out for its maintenance. I must admit there may be some conflict here and it is a matter of decision. But if a case can be made out that a valuable export trade is being lost—it would have to be a strong case, because it is often put forward without very much substance—no doubt the matter could he considered.
But it is a dangerous argument for the Chancellor, because over a wide range of articles covered by Purchase Tax which are now bringing in a substantial revenue he will find strong claims being made on quality grounds that the tax ought to be reduced; and in view of what he has said tonight he will not find it easy to resist

those demands. However, we are not considering Purchase Tax as a whole this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman justified his decision in this matter by saying he was bound, or felt bound, to observe the general conclusions of the Douglas Committee Report, particularly so far as the proposal that the value of D should be fixed at a median point in the scale. I must insist that there was no recommendation from the Douglas Committee that the value of D should be fixed at any particular level. It really is not so. There was a reference to it as a possible solution, but in their recommendations it does not appear. It is simply and solely a decision of the Government that the value of D should be fixed at a median level.
I cannot see that there is any particular principle involved in this. It merely means that we go a certain way down the Utility scale instead of not so far, or instead of leaving it at the top. The Chancellor is on firmer ground in arguing that he would lose too much revenue. I do not wish again to elaborate our arguments on that, but I must point out that were he to lose the whole £30 million to which he refers, it would still be less than half of the amount he will have to pay in increased interest charges this year, and this is something we cannot eliminate altogether from our minds.
While we welcome this concession, as we would welcome any concession which will relieve and assist the position in the textile trades, we do not think it is the best way of spending this money, if I may put it in this way; of making this particular concession. We should certainly prefer it should have been given in a form which enabled the value of the various Ds to go up, and we shall continue to press very strongly for an increase in these values as we go along. I do not feel that what the Chancellor has said would justify us in allowing these Amendments to go through without a Division. We have something of a principle at stake here, and it is a principle on which we feel very strongly. Therefore, in the circumstances, I would advise my hon. Friends that we should divide the Committee.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: It is only right that I should say, on behalf of some of us on this side of the Committee who have been giving the


Chancellor a very great deal of trouble during recent weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can jeer if they like. I do not mind in the slightest. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) had better learn a great deal more about the Duke of York than he knows at present. He was not at all a bad general.
The greatest thing that the Chancellor has done for us has been to make it clear that we are to have some certainty in this matter by Wednesday. If there is one thing from which the whole of the trade has been suffering it is the uncertainty which has been in the air since the time of the Budget. At any rate, by Wednesday night we shall all know where we are. I cannot say here and now in full what my friends in Lancashire will think of this concession. Nobody is likely to sneeze at £17 million with the prospect of a little more during the course of these debates.
But the proposition which we originally put forward was a proposition of a very different character. Naturally there will be considerable disappointment, but it is much to the Chancellor's credit that he has taken such enormous pains and trouble to do something to help us in this matter. The full judgment of the Committee can only be given when we have gone through the various items in the list and heard where it is that the Chancellor will find it possible to deal with the various anomalies in this scheme.
There are certain cases which are well known—furnishing fabrics, gloves, boots and shoes, and so on—which have given an exceptional amount of trouble to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. When, by tomorrow evening, we see where the Chancellor stands on these various items, we shall be in a position to make a judgment upon his whole plan and able to express an opinion upon it.

Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), seems to have convinced himself that he has given the Chancellor a lot of trouble with the actions he has taken and failed to take in the last few weeks. He has given the Chancellor just as much trouble as those small boys of all ages who find it good fun to hammer on somebody's front door and then to run away before the door is opened. That

is all that the right hon. Gentleman has done.
If he is really concerned about where the trouble has been caused, I can tell him. The real trouble, as he will find out before very long, has been caused in the Blackburn, West constituency. I assure him that the constituents of that very depressed area will not overlook the actions of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in putting down that very brave Motion before Easter about Purchase Tax and then running away as soon as they had a chance.

Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that the Motion which I put down at that time, and which I have stuck to all along, is that the Chancellor should be asked to reconsider the Purchase Tax. Also, I should like to tell him that in the Blackburn, West constituency there were no losses by the Conservative Party during the recent local elections.

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that the people of the Blackburn, West area had time to digest the results of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to vote with us as recently as last week.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in his original Motion all he proposed was that the Chancellor should reconsider Purchase Tax. As he knows perfectly well, and we have not allowed him to forget it, within a day or two of that Motion being put down, he wrote a most powerful letter to The Times." I have no doubt that it was quoted in the constituency Press, and I have no doubt that he quoted from it in the constituency speeches when he made a very strong plea indeed for taking Purchase Tax right off clothing and textiles.

Mr. Assheton: And I still believe in it.

Mr. Wilson: Obviously, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said, the Chancellor's statement will require careful study. We shall have time to consider it before the Ways and Means Resolution tomorrow, but I am very anxious to suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, and I believe, too, with equal force to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the statement made by the Chancellor tonight on first study provides no argument at all


against the proposals made by my hon. Friends, and that we should press at least certain of these Amendments to a Division.
My right hon. Friend was quite right when he said that, if the Chancellor has got this money to use to ease the problem of the textile and clothing industries, it would have been far better to raise the D level right along the line. I can well understand the Chancellor's difficulties, and I think we are all convinced that he is anxious, within the limitations of his views about revenue, to do something for Lancashire and Yorkshire. Our only regret is that he has approached it on so small a scale, because we had warned him several times already that the revenue which he is hoping to save will never materialise as long as the textile industry is depressed, as long as Income Tax and Profits Tax are affected in the textile areas, along with the payment of unemployment benefit. He would have done far better with that money to have altered the D level.
The burden of the arguments produced from this side of the Committee have been to show that, for the group which we have been discussing—classes A (1) to A (17) —the effect of the Chancellor's original proposal was to impose tax on a whole range of goods—roughly speaking, half the old Utility range—which were previously tax free. The Chancellor did not attempt to disguise from the Committee the limits of the new proposals. All that he has done is to reduce the rate of tax on a wide range of goods previously tax free and which now have to pay tax.
There is the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), in connection with a man's suit. Under the proposals at present before the Committee, the purchaser will pay 30s. in tax more than was being paid before the D scheme was introduced. If I understand the Chancellor's proposal, the rate of tax will now be 25 per cent. on that part of the cost of the garment which exceeds the D figure, instead of 33⅓ per cent. on the excess over the D figure.
In other words, in that particular case, the customer will now be paying, not 30s., but 7s. 6d. less—in other words, 22s. 6d. —on that garment. There is a saving of 7s. 6d. on that garment which the

customer will welcome as far as it goes, and which the producers of these garments will also welcome as far as it goes, but the fact still remains that our arguments are still sound, that over the whole range of goods which were once tax free tax will now be charged.
The interesting thing is that the Chancellor's proposals really affect the buyer of expensive goods over and above the old Utility prices, because the fact is that, concerning a suit which under the D scheme costs 30s. more than the old Utility scheme price for a suit of comparable quality, although the buyer of that suit saves 7s. 6d., the buyer of a more expensive suit, on which the tax under the present proposals is 40s., will save, not 7s. 6d., but 10s., because the more expensive the suit the greater the absolute saving. The Chancellor is, on the whole, using the small amount of money he has available for improving the position of those buying the more expensive rather than the less expensive articles of clothing.
The last point I wish to make is that the right hon. Gentleman said that the announcement of the change in the rate from 33⅓ to 25 per cent. did not preclude individual decisions of particular D levels within the Fourth Schedule. We welcome that, and in the course of the next two days we shall have a considerable number of proposals to make to him about D levels, and we hope he is going to make concessions on a good many of them.
As far as groups 1–7 are concerned —group 1 is now before us—we understood him to say that he has no concessions whatever to offer at the present time. If that is so, it means that he has not in any way met the points made by my hon. Friends and myself in the course of this evening. I naturally recognise that the difficult point about lined and unlined overcoats and jackets is one he will want time to study, although I thought the trade had brought that to the Treasury as one of the worst anomalies in the whole D scheme. If I am wrong about that, I apologise to the Chancellor, and will certainly make the figures available.
Apart from his offer to consider individual anomalies and at some unspecified time in the future to alter them, he has offered us no changes in the D level


on any of the items in groups 1–7. Therefore, my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee obviously cannot accept that as a solution of the problem either of the clothing industry or of the consumer whose cost of living has been raised by the D scheme and whose raised cost of living will be lowered only to a very small proportion by the concession announced by the Chancellor tonight.

Mr. Horobin: I only wish to intervene for a couple of moments as a Lancashire Member who did not see his way to add his name to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), in favour of the complete abolition of the Purchase Tax. I refrained from doing so for the reasons which the Chancellor has made very plain, because I felt it would be giving an uncertain benefit to Lancashire at the risk of completely unbalancing the Budget.
I welcome the solution which the Chancellor has chosen. Had he chosen the suggestion which has just been put forward to the Committee, he would not only have landed us with an ever-increasingly savage tax on these textile goods which

are the only hope of Lancashire in the future, but he would have got us no nearer to our object, the ultimate abolition of this tax.

It seems to me that the great advantage of the Chancellor's solution is that this year he has reduced the tax from 33⅓ to 25 per cent., which is as much as he can see his way of doing. Next year, I hope, it will come down to 20 or 15 per cent., and that in the natural course of events we shall see the total abolition of this mischievous tax.

For those two reasons I believe the Chancellor has done Lancashire far more good by sticking to his guns and choosing this method than by following the advice of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, or even the seductions of some of those who sit on this side. I am glad to feel that, if there is a Division on this Amendment, hon. Members sitting behind him will think that the Chancellor has done a good service not only to Lancashire, but also to the country as a whole.

Question put, "That '6 10 0' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 253.

Division No. 121.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fell, A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, wing Commander E. E
Finlay, Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butoher, H. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Carson, Hon. E.
Fort, R.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cary, Sir Robert
Foster, John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Channon, H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Astor, Hon J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Astor, Hon W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H


Barber, A. P. L
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gower, H. R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gespert)
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Birch, Nigel
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield>


Black, C. W.
Cuthbert, W N.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heald, Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heath, Edward


Braine, B. R.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duthie, W. S.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.
T Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bullard, D. G.
Erroll, F. J.
Hollis, M. C.




Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Shepherd, William


Hope, Lord John
Manningham Buller, Sir R. E
Simon, J. E. S (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hopkinson, Henry
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marples, A E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Horobin, I. M.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Smyth, Brig. J G (Norwood)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maude, Angus
Spearman, A. C. M.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, R.
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard


Hurd, A. R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Stevens, G. P.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark E'b'grh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Storey, S.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Studholme, H. G.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Joynsen-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kaberry, D.
Odey, G. W.
Teeling, W.


Keeling, Sir Edward
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, H. W (Cambridge)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Partridge, E.
Tilney, John


Leather, E. H. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Legh, P. R (Petersfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lennox-Boyd, Rt Hon. A. T
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Martin
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.


Linstead, H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wade, D. W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D C


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


McAdden, S. J.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wellwood, W.


McCallum, Major D.
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)


McCorquo-dale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McKibbin, A. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


MacLeod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfietd, W.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
York, C.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D



Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)
Scott, R. Donald
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Deer, G.


Adams, Richard
Broughton, Dr. A D. D
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt Hon John (W Bromwich)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edeiman, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Catlaghan, L. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bartley, P.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J
Chetwynd, G. R
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
Clunie, J.
Ewart, R.


Benson, G.
Cocks, F. S.
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F.
Coldrick, W.
Field, W. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Collick, P. H
Fienburgh, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Finch, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Crosland, C. A. R
Follick, M


Blyton, W. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A
Foot, M. M.


Boardman, H.
Daines, P.
Forman, J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowden, H. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.


Brockway, A. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gibson, C. W







Glanville, James
McGovern, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mclnnes, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
McLeavy, F.
Short, E. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Grey, C. F.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, J.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sparks, J. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.
Steele, T.


Hargreaves, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morley, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Houghton, Douglas
Noel, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)


Hoy, J.H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hubbard, T. F.
O'Brien, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, T.
Viant, S, P.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Weitzman, D.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall)


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A,
West, D. G.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paton, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jenkins, R. H (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Porter, G.
Wigg, George


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Key, Rt Hon. C. W
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Richards, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Lewis, Arthur
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


MacColl, J. E.
Ross, William



McGhee, H. G
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

Amendment proposed: In page 74, line 22, leave out "2 5 0," and insert "3 0 0."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Question put, "That '2 5 0' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 252.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, A. B.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)


Alporl, C. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Amory, Healhceat (Tiverton)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullard, D. G.


Athton, H. (Chelmsford)
Birch, Nigel
Bullock, Capt. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bishop, F. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Black, C. W.
Burden, F. F. A.


Aster, Hen. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butcher, H. W.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bowen, E. R.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Banks, Col. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carson, Hon. E.


Barber, A. P. L.
Braine, B. R.
Cary, Sir Robert




Channon, H.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Colegate, W. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jenkins, R. C. O. (Dulwich)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cuthbert, W. N.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt Hon. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
SchoReld, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Donner P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Scott, R. Donald


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Drayson G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simmons, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Duncan, Capt J. A. L.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Water


Duthie W. S.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Elliot Rt Hon W. E.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts. S.W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Erroll, F. J.
Low, A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)


Fell, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Speir, R.M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
McCallum, Major D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke C
McCorquolale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stevens, G. P.


Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Foster, John
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col.M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Garbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Studholme, H. G.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sutclifle, H.


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor Charles (Eastbourne)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, P. J.M. (Conway)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Douglas, (Bodmin)
Thompson Lt.-Cdr. R (Croydon, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maudling, R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Turton, R. H.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heald, Sir Lionel
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Vane, W. M. F.


Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Henderson John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.
Wade, D. W.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worecester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) 


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wellwood, W.


Hope, Lord John
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hopkinson, Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonhridge)


Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wills, G.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.
Wood, Hon. Ft


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
York, C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne




NOES


Aeland, Sir Richard
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Adams, Richard
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bartley, P.


Albu, A. H.
Awbery, S. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benn, Wedgwood


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baird, J
Benson. G.







Beswick, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Parker, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Porter, G.


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W>


Bowden, H. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Brought, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richards, R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Keenan, W.
Slater, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Daines, P.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon, H
Kinley, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mclnnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Field, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Follick, M-
Messer, F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
West, D. G.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon, H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wigg, George


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Glanville, James
Moyle, A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon Arthur (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Grey, C. F.
O'Brien, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hall Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Hamilton, W W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, E. A
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I rise with the familiar question: what are the Chancellor's intentions? I was going to say that they may very well be honourable and they may be serious, but even so we must know something more about them. How late does it involve us in sitting with him this evening? I draw his attention to the fact that we have made substantial progress on a very important part of the Bill, and he has made a very important statement which we should like to have more time to study. Some of us have given the Committee our immediate reactions, but many of my hon. Friends, who had been proposing to speak on the second group in the Schedule will have to do some hurried calculations if illustrations and examples are not to be wrong.
I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that in the circumstances it is fair and reasonable—and he is always fair and reasonable—that they should take time to make these calculations. It is very late to start arithmetic of that kind, and I hope that in the circumstances he may be willing for us to have an early evening tonight. We all know from his grim determination that we shall probably be late tomorrow night, and in anticipation of what is to come he may be willing to let us go home a little earlier tonight.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am asked what my intentions are, and therefore I make a proposal. The proposal I make is that I think it would be legitimate for the Committee to consider the next group and finish it by the hour at which we are becoming accustomed to rise; and that will leave us free to start tomorrow with boots and shoes, which are an important aspect of the problem. Otherwise, it will only mean that we shall have to sit longer tomorrow night, and I am sure we do not want to stay all night if we can avoid it. The issues are becoming well-known, and I do not think it will be necessary to sit all tomorrow night if we get through the business expeditiously early tomorrow. We should make little more progress now but should not sit beyond the hour to which hon. Members are becoming accustomed.
If that is agreeable, I would suggest reaching a decision on the next group before we rise, or at any rate not sitting

too late, and then saving that time on our next sitting. I would remind the Committee that the Motion we are taking tomorrow will be followed by a Clause, so I should think that soon after that Motion is moved tomorrow we could proceed with the rest of the Schedule, and therefore not be too late.

Mr. Gaitskell: The proposal is, like the curate's egg, good and bad in parts. I do not think we can possibly undertake to reach a decision within an hour on this important second group of Amendments. I know that my hon. Friends have a number of extremely important individual cases to raise with the Chancellor, and he was good enough to say that he would listen to what we had to say on this. But if he insists we will certainly proceed. I hope, however, he will agree that, provided we have had a good debate, as I am sure we shall have, even if we have not reached the point where we can come to a decision, we shall be able to adjourn at half-past eleven. In the hope that that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 74, line 32, to leave out "17 6," and to insert "£1 5 0."
We come now to deal with the second group, which is concerned largely with gentlemen's underwear. The same sort of criticism applies as to the last group. I think the Chancellor will appreciate that our amended D line did not take cognisance of the news which he has given to us.
The first item in this group has to do with shirts. I am informed that, in this category, this gave more dissatisfaction to the trade than anything else. I believe the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation have taken this up with the Treasury, and they say that the price gives considerable dissatisfaction to general dealers, because all types of shirts are lumped together for the purposes of the calculation.
Shirts of different fabrics are lumped together. For instance, there are wool shirts at 14s. 6d. a square yard and cotton shirts at 4s. a square yard; formal shirts, sports shirts, winter shirts and summer shirts, long-sleeved shirts, and short-


sleeved shirts, all lumped together. The same argument applies to pyjamas.
The Chancellor regaled us with a story earlier, and I am reminded of the story of the Scottish clergyman who prayed for rain. When he left his church rain began to fall; it rained all the week; when he went to his church next Sunday and mounted the pulpit rain was still falling, and he said, "Lord, Lord. This is ridiculous." The same arguments apply also to pyjamas. Also in the Schedule, of course, are undervests, singlets, pants, trunks, drawers; and there is a 15 per cent. allowance for wool.
We suggest that the general category should be broken down into two style categories, which would be far simpler: Singlets and Trunks: Class A material. Undervests and pants. Singlets and Trunks: Class B material. Undervests and pants. This would remove the anomaly of large sizes and the question of cotton vests and pants that has caused discussion, and would take into consideration the question of "all wool" goods for which the existing D line does not cater. Many of my hon. Friends have, I know, had considerable constituency representations on these matters.
Men's combinations, I understand, now have very little place in the British market, but for some unknown reason they are exported to America. The only public reference to them over here is by Cyril Fletcher from time to time on the radio.
There are considerable objections to the D line throughout the whole of the category. The Chancellor said that he is asked to differentiate between various style categories and that he has all sorts of examples flung at him. But it is his Finance Bill and his Budget and, obviously, the Opposition must take him up on the points that are presented to them. After all, it is the Chancellor who brought the scheme before us.
It may be that, as one of my hon. Friends said, there is over-simplification. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note particularly of the figure of 17s. 6d. for shirts. Anybody who compares the list with the various style categories in the trade will know the difficulties involved, and we earnestly hope that this matter will be one of the things to which the Chancellor is prepared to give most active consideration.

Mr. Erroll: I wish to enter a very brief plea for cotton condenser garments, which are very much used by workers in heavy manual occupations of an arduous or dirty character, such as civil engineering, steel-making and the like, where a person's underwear is subject to a good deal of heavy wear and tear and may also-become soiled in the process of the work.
The advantage of cotton condenser underwear is that it can be readily cleaned by being boiled and does not suffer in the same way as heavy woollen articles. It is popular, too, because it is so cheap. The Amendment in my name —in page 75, line 4, at the end, to insert "other than cotton condenser garments"—seeks to raise the D level on cotton condenser underwear, so that the articles may continue to be cheap, useful and popular.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: It may be thought that I should declare an interest in the woollen underwear industry. Due to an accident of birth, I have a name which suggests a certain physiological disability. Whatever may have given the disability to one of my ancestors, I assure the Committee that I do not suffer from it, and, therefore, I do not need to declare an interest.
I am very glad to have an opportunity of following the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), because the point which he has raised is one that I intended to put forward as a very typical example of the inability of the Chancellor to foresee the whole of the implications of the impact of the introduction of this new type of taxation. As a result of accepting the D scheme he is altering the whole tax structure of the country, and thus producing all kinds of unforeseen consequences.
The Chancellor has told us that if we can convince him that there is a genuine grievance or abuse he will consider altering the Schedule. I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee further details of the effect of the tax on men's cotton condenser shirts and pants. In the past these articles were free from any form of Purchase Tax, but they are now carrying a tax of two shillings a pair. That is objectionable for two reasons.
These clothes are as much a part of a man's kit as is his pick or shovel. A


man doing heavy or dirty work must have clothing of this sort which he can wash and wear again, and this tax will raise the price of an essential piece of a working man's equipment to a price that the ordinary working man cannot afford. The automatic drop in demand is already making itself felt in the industry in Nottingham which is manufacturing nearly one million of these garments a year. The demand has already fallen to such an extent that more than 100 men have been dismissed from one factory which has been closed completely. This is a case which merits attention by the Chancellor.
Another point I should like to mention, and which I should have raised had we been going through the Schedule item by item, is item 16 in the Schedule which deals with combinations. That may seem a rather small or narrow item to try to amend. Combinations are old-fashioned garments surrounded by an aura of comedy. As it is an old-fashioned garment it tends to be worn by old-fashioned people, who will be unable to afford the cost of, to them, this necessary garment. I urge the Chancellor to consider this small item, and give some assistance to a hard-pressed section of the community.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I have not spoken in this debate until now, and only do so because, on looking around, I see that the Father of the House seems to have left before we came to discuss the one subject on which he should have addressed us. In the absence of all the Conservative Members for Northern Ireland, I should like to make a plea for that industry which is the heart and centre of Northern Ireland. The Chancellor ought to consider that part of the country from which he derives his title Unionist, for after the recent elections in his constituency he will only be able to call himself Unionist or Independent.
He ought to do something about this industry, which makes shirts, but it has been left to me to raise this crucial matter relating to Northern Ireland. In Londonderry there is a higher degree of unemployment than in any other town in the United Kingdom, and it seems to me that that is a point which the Chancellor ought to take into consideration. He really ought to do something for the shirt in-

dustry. A tremendous business has been built up depending on this one single commodity alone. There are factories in Londonderry which depend entirely on shirt manufacture, and if the present position continues the dreadful slump in Northern Ireland will go on.
I am sorry it was left to me to make this plea, but owing to the unfortunate absence of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Wellwood) I felt that, out of pure fellow-feeling, someone on this side of the Committee ought on his behalf to speak for his constituency.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would support my hon. Friends who pressed for higher D levels throughout the whole range of this group. I do not think any of us need detain the Committee for long, because many of the considerations are the same as those which we urged unsuccessfully when we were discussing the other group earlier.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) I think it would have been a very good thing if the Committee had had a little more time to consider the effect of the statement by the Chancellor so that we could have given detailed figures; because it will mean some changes in the figures which we may quote at this hour. It is clear that the announcement by the Chancellor of the reduction from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. in the rate of Purchase Tax on items in the group we are considering will not weaken the force of the argument which we urge that, roughly speaking, half the goods which were tax-free will now carry tax. The only difference is that as a result of the announcement they will carry 25 per cent. less tax than they would have done.
There are a number of serious anomalies in this group, as there were in the previous group. I am not aware of any anomaly of the kind I illustrated when we were discussing the previous group, arising from the fact that the difference between the D levels for two comparable articles of clothing was excessive. I do not know of any, but there may be some which my bon. Friends will be able to mention. But there are some very bad cases within this group resulting from the fact either that the D level has been capriciously fixed or from the fact that the grading is too wide and requires subdivisions.
After hearing the statement of the Chancellor as to the way in which the particular D levels were reached, I am more suspicious than ever of their accuracy as a basis for carrying on the great volume of wholesale and retail trade in this country. They were based on a very small sample carried out by the Social Survey. Sometimes scientists tell us that these samples are accurate, but we know they can be highly inaccurate, as in the case of the Gallup Poll figures for the 1948 Presidential election in the United States of America and in the case of the "Daily Express" Election figures. But I will not pursue that, because I should be out of order.
We have asked how these figures were arrived at, and we have been told they were reached on the basis of a survey covering some 1,500 people. That may explain why some of these figures seem to be so inappropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) seemed quite definite that shirts provide the worst anomaly in the whole of this group.
10.45 p.m.
I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, and I know that if I do disagree with him, the Tory Press will produce their usual headlines about a split in the Labour Party, but as it happens, I do not really agree with him. I think that the worst anomaly will be found in other items of men's underwear. Certainly, there are some difficulties about shirts. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has stressed what we had not heard, but should have been told, about the effect on employment in Northern Ireland as the result of the depression in the shirt trade at the present time.
One can find serious consequences of the D scheme as it affects shirts, and the trade in general is very much concerned about the anomaly as between cotton or poplin or even linen shirts, on the one hand, and wool shirts, on the other, and I think that is one of the things to which the Chancellor referred when he talked about the possibility of concessions.
To some extent I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. I think that the problem of men's underwear is even more serious. In many sections of the trade, it is felt that this

figure of 4s. for Class B material is based on some serious mistake or miscalculation. It may have been even a misprint, or it may have been that the figure of 1,500 people covering the whole country included only three or four people who bought the particular kind of underwear referred to in the Schedule.
I understand that the survey was taken at one moment of time in last summer or early autumn, and the calculation may have been based on the fact that this figure of 4s. might be appropriate for Interlock or cellular vests, many of which sell in the summer months, but, for most other of the cheapest versions of vests and so on, 5s. 6d. would have been appropriate.
I shall not repeat the point raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). It is a very sound point, and the arguments impressed the whole Committee. Without going into that argument, I am sure that the Committee will recognise the force of our proposal to divide this category of singlets, vests, pants and drawers into two groups, because, obviously, there is a difference between a short singlet or a pair of short trunks, on the one hand, and undervests, long pants and so on, on the other.
When we began talking about these things and put Amendments down, particularly as it had been noticed that they were supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) and Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), a certain amount of amusement was caused. When one starts talking about combinations and long woollen underpants, one realises that one is getting into the realm of the music hall. I associate combinations with Arthur Askey rather than Cyril Fletcher, though both have made important contributions to human culture in that respect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central said, this is a serious argument, and the high cost of these things is a very serious item, considering that some people, for one reason or another—perhaps custom, or habit or even illness—find it necessary to wear some of these more expensive garments. Many men, as they get older, wear long woollen underpants. There may be arguments whether they should or not, but I am not qualified to go into that.
Some people, particularly if they are suffering from rheumatism or a similar complaint, find it necessary to have these long woollen garments, and it is fantastic that the D level on an article of men's underwear should really be related to the short pants which more fortunate people are able to wear. I have seen some figures provided by a Co-operative Society, and even with the Chancellor's announcement tonight of a reduction from 33⅓ to 25 per cent., the tax paid on the more expensive items, such as long pants and long-sleeved vests, will represent a very heavy imposition. Of course, now we are much less happy about the Government's proposals for maintaining quality, one has to remember that this will lead to a serious increase in the cost of living among our people, and especially the old folk.
To illustrate the same point in another way—and these are figures which I worked out before the Chancellor's announcement tonight—I have here some retail figures which show that, if one takes a class A vest costing £1 11s. 0d., it will, under the Schedule at present before the Committee, cost £1 14s. 4d. That is as the Schedule stands; it may be that the Chancellor's announcement will have the effect of reducing that by ninepence or so, but the price will still be 2s. 6d. or thereabouts more than it was; and if the garment is class D material, its price goes from 10s. 4d. to 11s. 8d.
We are becoming familiar with the argument used by the Government Front Bench about the D scheme. Perhaps they are getting used to our argument, but I do most seriously suggest that the figures which have been quoted in respect of the group at present being considered by the Committee show that there will be real hardship as a result of these excessively low D levels which are to be found in this Schedule.
Once again, we on this side of the Committee appeal to the Front Bench opposite to bear in mind two very real considerations. One, the effect on industries producing these articles—both the makers of the textile materials, and the industries making them up into garments; and that is not taking into account the wholesale and retail distributive trades. Let us consider the serious

unemployment about which a great deal has been said; and, secondly, let us remember the factor of the cost of living so far as the consumer is concerned. Despite the changes conceded tonight—and whatever is said about those proposals, we on this side consider them to be on the wrong lines—there will be a serious rise in the cost of living for by far the greater proportion of the British people.

Mr. Dodds: I thought that the Chancellor, in discussing these Amendments, rather poured cold water on the idea of concessions which would cost £17 million; but in the course of his speech he made the remarkable admission that the suggested Amendments would cost the Treasury between £30 million and £40 million. Bearing in mind the background to the Douglas Committee Report, which was based on the need to raise as much revenue as under the old Utility scheme, and taking it that the Chancellor had that fact in mind when he put forward these D levels, then he must be getting the same amount of tax.
That means he is putting this £30 million or £40 million of taxation on the lower income groups. In other words, if the Exchequer is to get the same amount of money—that is what the Government have been pleading all the time, that the Douglas Committee fixed the D level to yield the same amount of money—and if the granting of these concessions would cost £30 or £40 million, the Government admit that they have put on the lower income groups who formerly bought goods free of tax £30 or £40 million of extra taxation. That is consistent with the allegation about the Budget that it is a re-distribution of wealth, and we have had a clear indication of that from the Chancellor.
I now wish to deal with items 15 and 16. The point I wish to make is based on a criticism made by Co-operative societies all over England, Wales and Scotland. In every single case there has been criticism of the proposal to include class B of item 15 at 4s. per article. Class B deals with undervests, singlets, pants, trunks and drawers. They are cotton or rayon garments. Co-operative societies all over the country say that they could not manage to provide pants priced at 4s. for men except those with a thin athletic figure.
In the case of long pants, worn mainly by the elderly man, there is no differentiation between them and the short pants. Class B includes merino, interlock, art silk, rayon, and, of course, condenser cotton. There is such a wide variation that to make a D level of 4s. shows clearly the kind of bureaucratic mind which has worked out these proposals. The trade say that the 14s. level for wool and wool and cotton mixed is much below what it should be.
I defy any business man to say that trunks can be manufactured for 4s. for any other than the thin athletic figure. The young may get away with it, but, by and large, there are no goods in this category that can be free of Purchase Tax. As I said earlier, we are seeing something new in the way of taxation. It is a tax on the dimensions of the citizen. Here we have a tax which will bear most heavily on the elderly who wear long pants.
In item 16 are combinations, which are not worn by very many people in this country. From researches I have made I have discovered that very few shops stock them. In most cases, the shopkeeper sends the size to the manufacturer and has them specially made up. It is farcical to put into this category a D line which in the case of class B is 7s. and in the case of class A 25s. The Douglas Committee in paragraph 102 of its Report more or less covered this point:
In certain respects, especially for the purcase of the rarer and more expensive items"—
and this is one of the rarer—
in any class of goods, the figures obtained by the social survey may be subject to considerable error.
11.0 p.m.
I submit that in these two classifications there is ample evidence to indicate that there has been an error. But tonight we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stonewalling on every item, and they have not yet had the courage to admit that we have instanced one or more items in which it is obvious that a mistake has been made. Is it not possible that before we part with the Schedule there should be an admission that there has been a mistake in some of these D levels?
Earlier the Chancellor said that he has given what he could afford and that he

will sympathetically look at some of the other items. I wonder if he had forgotten, when he got up, his interest in outsizes. I am not sure whether his absence while we were talking about out-sizes was deliberate, because he has a conscience, I believe. He has made it clear that he would look sympathetically on the question of outsizes, yet when we were discussing the point he was out the whole time, until after the Division.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I express my sincere regrets? Unfortunately I have a great number of duties I have to transact elsewhere, and although I try to be here there are a few moments when I am engaged by problems outside.

Mr. Dodds: I am much relieved to hear that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not present during that important part of our proceedings does not mean in any way that he has lost his sympathy for outsize men and women. On that note of understanding, I shall leave the really hard things I wanted to say, hoping that in return for my generosity the right hon. Gentleman will in turn be generous towards some of the items I have mentioned.

Mr. Lee: Contained in this group are a number of items of clothing that are required only under working conditions—overalls, boiler suits, and so on. I should have thought that here the Chancellor would take account of the incidence of replacement of such garments. Men wearing these garments cannot hope to get a long life out of them. The hard-wearing nature of the work the wearer does should have been one of the considerations, since replacement will mean high cost.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the wage advances now being asked for. This question is most germane to that matter. If it can be argued, as it can be forcibly argued, that he is not treating this type of apparel in a special category, then the trade unions are fortified in asking for higher pay in order to get consideration for this type of point.
I was rather distressed when the right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted the median point argument. I thought he threw overboard completely the arguments which hon. Friends of mine and, indeed, his, have addressed to him for so long in regard to textiles—that in


times of depression we should be prepared to consider purchasing power rather than to keep to a classical formula of mopping up purchasing power during an inflation.
If, in the years to come—if the right hon. Gentleman is in office that long, which I doubt—he adheres to the fixed attitude of mind which he displayed when he spoke a little while ago, that the only reason shirts exist is so that he can get some form of revenue out of them, we can have no hope that his fiscal policy will take cognisance of the position in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and other places which are now in the midst of a depression, and be used to correct and improve their economic atmosphere.
It was because I had in mind considerations of that sort that I deplored the absence of anybody representing the Board of Trade. I am not trying to make party points on this question; but it is most essential that the Chancellor should have the assistance of the Ministers of the Board of Trade when we are discussing such things as textiles and clothing, in which the Board of Trade should be specialising. The right hon. Gentleman knows that many of the deputations from Lancashire have discussed these vital matters with either the President or his officials at the Board of Trade, and it seems to us most peculiar that we should suddenly pass into a world in which the Board of Trade, apparently, takes not the slightest interest in those basic problems of clothing and textiles which, in the ordinary run of events, one would have thought to be within its field.
I am not saying for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary are not aware of the problem; I know they are; but when all is said and done it is not within their field to discuss different values to be attached to different articles of wear. As I see it, their job is to look at the global taxation levels which they can obtain.
I should have thought that many of the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee by my hon. and right hon. Friends have been arguments which show that in certain types of product there is a distinct case for lessening the incidence of taxation. I hope that in future we can have the presence of the

President of the Board of Trade or his junior Ministers in order that we can put to them individual cases.
I do not want to particularise on the differences in the D levels. The changes announced by the Chancellor are very welcome; and I shall not attempt to deploy arguments I should otherwise have liked to address to the Committee because I do not pretend that I can be accurate in my figures when taking those alterations into account.
I hope that instead of having a fixed conception and merely setting a D line according to how much money it is going to yield—which, incidentally, can be a very misleading argument, because if the depression in textiles continues he will not get anything like the yield for which he is budgeting—the Chancellor will see the necessity to deploy this economic argument in order to stimulate the sale of those things which are not selling well at the present time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We have had a good many suggestions on a good many aspects of this subject. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who moved the Amendment, criticised the arrangement in the Schedule on the grounds that it was wrong for shirts, generally, to be taken together. That is a criticism, which probably goes a good deal wide of this Amendment, although it is clearly relevant to it.
We have sought throughout these Schedules to achieve a fairly high degree of simplicity and workability in the scheme by not having too many separate categories. It is always arguable that we have gone too far, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) says. It is equally arguable that we have carried complexity too far. It is really a matter of judgment whether we have found the median point in this connection.
What is important to bear in mind is that, generally in the case of such items as shirts, the level of taxation involved is not very serious. I can tell the Committee the actual amounts involved with respect to one or two of the articles we have been discussing, particularly in the light of the concessions, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced about an hour ago on the subject of rates. Now, thanks to that adjustment of the tax burden, a poplin shirt with two


collars, in the case of which, I understand, the popular retail price range runs from 18s. 0d. to 35s. 0d., now bears no tax at all at the bottom end of the range, the tax rising to Is. 6d. at the top. A drill shirt, retailing at between 16s. 0d. and £1, bears no tax.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman not quoting wholesale prices?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. The D scheme relates to the wholesale price, but the prices I have given are the retail prices.

Mr. W. A. Burke (Burnley): Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the address at which we can get poplin shirts at 18s. 0d.?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be contrary to precedent and, I think, to propriety, if I were to use this Box as an advertising agency for any retail establishment. I am advised that this is the popular retail price range for this particular type of article.
In a third case, an athletic vest, retailing at 4s. 0d. to 7s. 0d., the tax runs from nothing to 4d. Therefore, we are concerned, not with a very heavy incidence of taxation throughout this range, but with an incidence of taxation, which has been reduced by 25 per cent. as the result of the announcement which my right hon. Friend made today.
That is material from the point of view that if one is imposing a very heavy burden of taxation, it is arguable that one should produce, if necessary, an elaborate administrative system to make certain that its incidence falls with mathematical exactitude and a considerable decree of precision. Where one is dealing with shirts it is unnecessary, and it would be wrong, to produce an elaborate system, expensive and difficult to administer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom), both referred to cotton condenser garments. I have a good deal of sympathy with what both of them said. It was implicit, and indeed, explicit, in the Douglas Committee's recommendations that one would have, in substance, two sets of material —wool and similar fibres on the one hand, and cotton and similar fibres on the other.
11.15 p.m.
We really are going to make a very big breach in the Douglas recommendations and in the workability of the scheme if we create a new material category in favour of this material. There is a good deal to be said—and both hon. Gentlemen said it—for the special claims of a fabric which does play a very useful part and is of great advantage to many in industry, but none the less, and on balance, I do not think it right to create a special category to deal with it.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred—as he himself said—very largely to matters which are in general controversy between the two sides of the Committee. He reiterated the general view which he and his hon. Friends hold on the general principle as to where the D levels should be fixed, and he expressed his belief that they should be fixed at or above the old Utility level. I know he will not think me discourteous if I do not enter for the fifth or sixth time the general debate.
I will, however, join issue with him over his contention about the levels being capriciously fixed. They were fixed as a result of a Social Survey investigation carried out by the perfectly impartial people in the Survey who served the late Government, as they serve this, with a very high sense of duty and a high level of efficiency. It is not so long ago that I had to contend with a considerable degree of criticism from the other side of the Committee because we had made some trifling reduction in the size of the Survey. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) will recall the occasion. I do not think it is quite fair to describe the results of the Survey in the way the right hon. Gentleman did. The specimen may not be mathematically accurate but that it is substantially accurate for working purposes we would not care to dispute.

Mr. H. Wilson: Of course none of us are impugning either the scientific ability or integrity of the members of the Survey. They have done a remarkable job over the last eight or 10 years in many inquiries which have been useful to the Governments of more than one party. But I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he or the Chancellor has been into the question for themselves.


Have they worked out whether the sample was big enough because this is a matter of great importance to individual families? Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that, for he is basing all his arguments on the median balance and on the assumption that these figures give the right median figures?
Take any one of the items we are discussing—men's underpants, singlets, vests —how many of these were bought by the whole of the group covered by the Social Survey in this particular inquiry? Could he also tell the Committee, because the method of arriving at these figures is of fundamental importance, what discussions or consultations there were with the trades and industries concerned on the productive and distributive sides before the D figures were fixed by the Government?
We know all about the theoretical method, but how complete and large was the sample in respect of underpants, pyjamas, combinations or whatever it might be. If there were no consultations with trade and industry why is the Financial Secretary asking the Committee to agree to these capricious figures?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to detail the activities of the Social Survey on each of the very large number of articles in the Schedule—

Mr. H. Wilson: Give any one of them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —because he knows perfectly well, from his experience at the Board of Trade, that that is not how the Social Survey works. The right hon. Gentleman has probably had better opportunities for knowing how the Social Survey works than have most hon. and right hon. Members. He knows perfectly well that it does not operate by reporting how many pairs of pants it has counted. It operates by carrying out, with its own trained investigators, with its own, by now, fairly well practised technique, the right method for assessing what it is told to assess; and it would not take matters any further if I were able, which I am not, to tell the Committee how many pairs of pants or anything else were counted by the Social Survey.
As regards the other point, the right hon. Gentleman knows equally well the

limitations imposed by the necessity for Budget secrecy. He knows, as does the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), that in the preparation of a Budget it is neither possible, wise, nor in accordance with custom to disclose in advance matters that are material to the Budget.
But the result has now been available for some weeks. There has been the fullest opportunity for criticism or discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit that he thinks these figures are wrong is not necessarily a contradiction of the skilled work that went to their production. But the figures are here for discussion, and it is a legitimate matter for hon. or right hon. Members to express their views on them.
What I am concerned to do tonight is to make it clear to the Committee the basis on which we are acting, the perfectly clear, well-established, well-known procedure by which the figures were ascertained. That is what the Committee, rightly, will concern itself with in our discussions, both on the Amendment and, because, as the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the issue goes wide, all through the Schedule. The same point has been raised on previous Amendments, and will, no doubt, be raised on subsequent ones. But the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee)—

Mr. Dodds: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member had an opportunity to make a speech. I am trying to reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Newton. When I have done that, I will gladly give way.
The hon. Member for Newton launched his attack on the principle of the median point. He made clear, as has been made clear from his side of the Committee on a number of occasions, that he did not agree with the principle of the median point. I should not assist either the hon. Member or the Committee if I were to give once again the reasons why we think, and why the Douglas Committee thought, that that was a reasonable basis on which to impose this tax, except to say that the hon. Member always puts his case so persuasively that I thought it would be discourteous not to mention it. Does the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) wish to intervene?

Mr. Dodds: My right hon. Friend tried to press the point so that we should get some information as to how these figures were arrived at. We have been told how the survey was taken and how many people were employed; but who, for instance, fixed in item 15, class B, under-vests, singlets and pants at 4s. per article? Was it the people in the Central Office of Information? Was it the Treasury, the Board of Trade, or who was it, because the people in the business, who know something about prices, cannot understand this figure? It would help us if we were told who fixed the 4s.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have told the Committee, as indeed the Chancellor did on a previous Amendment, the precise

manner by which these figures were reached. I do not think I shall help the hon. Gentleman, and indeed I think I shall stand in danger of your censure, Sir Charles, on the grounds of tedious repetition, if I repeat it now. They were reached by the machinery of the Social Survey, acting as has already been described to the Committee. That is how the figure, together with the large mass of other figures, was reached, and I hope that will make it clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put, "That '17 6' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 234.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Allan, R. A (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hurd. A. R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R, (Blackburn, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Drewe, C.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Astor, Hon. W. W (Bucks, Wycombe)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baker, P. A. D.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Banks, Col. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Barber, A. P. L
Fell, A.
Kaberry, D.


Baxter, A. B.
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Langford-Holt, J. A


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fort, R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bishop, F. P,
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Black, C. W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lindsay, Martin


Boothby, R. J. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Braine, B. R.
Godber, J. B.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, A. R. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimond, J.
Lucas. Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harden, J. R. E.
McCallum, Major D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Channon, H
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cole, Norman
Higgs, J. M. C.
Manningham-Buller,Sir R. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Cranborne, Viscount
Hollis, M. C.
Maudling, R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hopkinson, Henry
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crouch, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, A. H. E.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Horobin, I. M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)




Mott-Radolyffe, C. E
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nicholls, Harmar
Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Tilney, John


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)
Turner, H. F. L.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Turton, R. H.


Odey, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vesper, D. F.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Osborne, C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Partridge, E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Speir R. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spence, H. R.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stevens, G. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Powell, J. Enoch
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Profumo, J. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Raikes, H. V.
Storey, S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wills, G.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Renton, D. L. M.
Studholme, H. G.
Wood, Hon. R.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sutcliffe, H.



Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.


Robson-Brown, W.
Teeling, W.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Adams, Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Albu, A. H.
Edelman, M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Janner, B


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Baird, J.
Ewart, R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Benn, Wedgwood
Field, W. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Benson, G.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Beswick, F
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Follick, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blackburn, F.
Foot, M. M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


BlenkHisop, A.
Forman, J. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blyton, W. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lewis, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Logan, D. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
MacCell, J. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Glanville, James
McGhee, H. G.


Brookway, A. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McGovern, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mclnnes, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Carmichael, J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W W
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Chapman, W. D.
Hannan, W.
Manuel, A. C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hardy, E. A
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Clunie, J.
Hargreaves, A
Mayhew, C. P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R


Coldrick, W.
Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.


Collick, P. H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moody, A. S.


Cook, T. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morley, R.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Houghton, Douglas
Murray, J. D.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T. F
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
O'Brien, T.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldneld, W. H.


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.







Padley, W. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tomney, F.


Paget, R. T.
Short, E. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Ungoed-Thomas. Sir Lynn


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Watkins, T. E.


Pannell, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Pargiter, G A.
Simmons, C. J, (Brierley Hill)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Parker, J.
Slater, J.
West, D. G.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Snow, J. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Porter, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Wigg, George


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. O.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wyatt, W. L.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Ross, William
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Royle, C.
Thomas, Ivor (Wrekin)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thurtle, Ernest



Question put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: No Amendments on Page 963 are selected, so we now proceed to those dealing with boots and shoes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
should like to give the Committee knowledge of what is likely to be on the Order Paper tomorrow. Besides the Ways and Means Resolution, to which I referred earlier, or rather as part of that Resolution, there will be reference to a reduction of Purchase Tax on fur gloves. The reason is that it is part of the money part of the Ways and Means Resolution. Hon. Members will be able to study it in the morning and form their own conclusions.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT AGREEMENT)

11.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move,
That the Agreement, dated 3rd April, 1952, between Her Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne Limited for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved.
It is notoriously hazardous for a Sassenach to cross the Border unescorted,

but I am hopeful that my reception from hon. Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies will not be too unfriendly, as I come to them on this occasion laden with gold, and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply at the end of this debate to any points which hon. Members may desire to raise.
The purpose of this Agreement is to maintain certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to continue for another 10 years the subsidy to David MacBrayne, Ltd., for this purpose. As hon. Gentlemen are doubtless aware, this arrangement goes back a considerable time, to be precise 61 years. It was in 1891 that the Post Office first made an arrangement with this company for the carriage of mails.
I do not think that the need to subsidise the transport system of the Western Highlands and Islands is seriously questioned on either side of the House. By approving from time to time over a period of years previous Agreements of this nature, the House has recognised that to provide essential transport in such a sparsely populated area cannot in the nature of things be a remunerative venture, and that, unless the inhabitants are to be burdened with transport costs well beyond their means, and if their ability to remain and thrive in these areas is not to be jeopardised, the Government must help.
The Agreement before the House tonight is intended to supersede that


made in 1949 by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) when he was Minister of Transport. That Agreement ran for three years and could have continued thereafter, subject to six months' notice on either side; but, in fact, the Company gave notice during the regime of the last Government that it wished to terminate the Agreement on 31st December last. It agreed, however, to extend the period of notice on the understanding that the new Agreement would operate as from 1st January of this year, whenever it might be approved.
The Company terminated the Agreement because, on looking back, it turned out to be a very hard bargain indeed. It provided for an annual advance to the Company of £240,000, including £215,000 on operating, plus £25,000 as remuneration on capital employed; representing a rate of interest of three-and-a-half per cent. Now, as hon. Members need hardly to be reminded, price levels rose from 1949 onwards, and the figure of £240,000 proved to be insufficient.
Some of these increased costs were passed on as percentage increases in freights and fares, corresponding to those in the inland transport system. But, in spite of this, the gap between revenue and expenditure tended to widen. The consequent loss was borne, largely, by the Exchequer, but part also fell on the Company under the arrangement, for sharing profit and loss which was part of the Agreement; although the causes for the loss were beyond the Company's control.
In order to provide necessary new vessels and road vehicles, the Company was forced to resort to a bank overdraft and it is not surprising, therefore, that the Company took the first opportunity to terminate the Agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), when Minister during the past six months, had no hesitation in carrying on negotiations for a new contract which were begun when his predecessor was in office. Successive govvernments have negotiated for many years past with the Company to carry on this service, and nobody is better able to give this service than this Company, with its long experience of the waters around the Islands, and the roads on them and in the Highlands.
When previous contracts have been submitted to this House, as this is submitted tonight, some hon. Members have urged that this island shipping service, and its related road service, should be run as part of the nationalised transport system of this country. But I am not surprised that the previous Socialist Minister of Transport, despite some pressure in the other direction, maintained the traditional position under which these services were provided by an independent company.
Now, when a company is in receipt of a large sum of money from a Government for the provision of certain services, there is very properly some need for public control over the activities of that company. We are fully satisfied that the Government's interest in MacBrayne's is fully looked after by the presence on the board of a Government director as well as by the other safeguards of the contract itself.
We have been careful to see that while, on the one hand, the Government's interest is fully protected, on the other hand the company is not subjected to such detailed control as to prejudice in any way its sense of responsibility for the proper running of the concern and the spirit of enterprise which is essential in running any shipping business, be it large or small.
I am concerned in this opening speech mainly to explain to the House the general terms of the contract, and I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to deal more specifically with the services to be provided when he replies at the end of the debate. But, in general, the level of services which David MacBrayne Ltd. undertakes to provide is broadly the same as under the contract now coming to an end.
I turn to the terms of the contract which is before the House. It is intended to run on this occasion for 10 years. The company wanted the term to be as long as possible so as to give itself security of tenure as contractor. We agreed to 10 years because without a substantial length of contract the company could not be expected to provide the new vessels and road vehicles necessary for the proper maintenance of the service.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My recollection as a Member of the Committee upstairs which dealt with the Transport Act is that the Minister who has just resigned was rather critical of the whole thing. If my recollection is correct, the question of the price level arose every two years during the last five years. Is it now to be stabilised at this new high figure, and do the Government now think that this high figure will remain for 10 years, or is there any provision for a reduction?

Mr. Braithwaite: I, too, was on the Committee which dealt with the Transport Act upstairs, and I have a reasonable recollection of the speeches made by many of us, including that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). But I would ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to unfold the terms of the contract because the question of price levels has been given considerable consideration and dealt with. If at the end the hon. Gentleman's displeasure has been aroused, then, perhaps, he might endeavour to seek an opportunity to make his point.
I was about to remark that the 10-year period of contract was the pre-war practice to which it is now proposed to revert. The general financial principles of this Agreement are the same as those of the last which received general approval on both sides of the House under the late Government. They are briefly that the company undertakes to provide certain specified steamer and road services and the Government, for their part, pay a grant calculated to give a reasonable return on capital employed coupled with a measure of risk and incentive so that, within limits, the company bears a proportion of any deficiency, but has the opportunity to share in any excess profits.
Now I come to the figures which I think will cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, a few moments ago as to just how the financial adjustments have been made since the last contract was arranged. On this occasion the annual advance proposed is £360,000. It is true that this is 50 per cent. more than the advance of £240,000 written into the last contract and that the services in this new Agreement are substantially the same as those in the last; and, of course, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point which requires some elucidation.
I suggest to the House, however, that the real comparison—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me here—is not with the figure of £240,000 which was written into the contract last time, but with the final amount paid to the company under the old contract, which for 1951 will not be far short of £300,000 because of the widening gap between expenditure and revenue to which I have already referred.
The figure of £360,000 was arrived at after some very hard negotiations based on a most careful investigation of the Company's accounts and allowing for known increases in the level of costs on the one hand, and the effect of increased charges on the other. The difference of £120,000 is due, to the extent of £110,000, to increased costs only partly offset by increased revenue—wages, dock labour, fuel, and repairs. The remaining £10,000 is due to the increase from 3½ per cent. to 5 per cent. in the rate of interest allowed on capital employed.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman did promise to make the point clear, and I am anxious to understand this because of the criticism levelled in the last Parliament. He did say that rates had gone up, and that £120,000 had been added because MacBrayne's had an overdraft and would not carry on. He then went on to say that the figure had not gone up much if we considered all the financial provisions. He finally said that this Agreement is going on for 10 years—guaranteed. If that is so, is it really the contention that increased rates and £120,000 more costs are to be features of a Conservative Government for the next 10 years, if they last so long?

Mr. Braithwaite: I always like to give way, particularly to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, because his interventions are always of interest and sometimes relevant. But it really is a little difficult when the picture is still incomplete. I am still endeavouring to explain the matter to the House, and when the whole picture is drawn hon. Members will be in a better position to praise or blame the arrangements made.
I had got to the increased rate of interest. The risk and incentive arrangements—that is, arrangements under which certain excess profits and losses are shared by the Government and the Com-


pany—have been retained in the present Agreement. This matter has been conducted in years past on a non-party basis, and it is worth reminding hon. Members —I emphasise this—that this arrangement formed part of the contract negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Ham, South. It was welcomed by this House at the time and did not attract the strictures of the hon. Member for Oldham, West on that occasion. It may be that his translation to the Opposition side of the House has sharpened his wit.
The Company's profit of £35,000 is not guaranteed, and within a limited range the Company may make more or less than that figure, according to a formula laid down in the last contract. Any profits made over £35,000 are to be shared equally between the Company and the Exchequer up to a total of £15,000, from which point the surplus, if any, goes to the Exchequer.
Conversely, if the profit falls short of £35,000 the Government will bear one half of the deficiency up to £15,000, and any loss in excess of that amount; the other half of the first £15,000 is to be borne by the Company. To simplify what I hope is not a difficult calculation, the Company's profit of £35,000 may be increased or reduced by as much as £7,500. The Company may accordingly earn a maximum profit of £42,500, or a minimum of £27,500. At present levels of taxation, as they bear on this Company, this would enable it to earn sufficient to pay approximately a minimum dividend of 4 per cent. on the issued capital or a maximum dividend of a little over 6 per cent.—

Mr. Hale: Tax free?

Mr. Braithwaite: —but the contract provides that the Company shall not pay a dividend of more than 5 per cent. on its issued capital. This limitation on dividends is not new. I am sure it appeals to hon. Members opposite. On the previous occasion it was the subject of an exchange of letters, in fact, outside the Agreement.
The remaining provisions of the Agreement are substantially as before. There is provision in the contract under which the annual sum may be adjusted if the steamer or road services are altered—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether he means that the dividends will be tax free?

Mr. Braithwaite: Not the dividends.

Mr. MacMillan: It was understood on this side of the House that the hon. Gentleman meant that they were tax free.

Mr. Braithwaite: No. These, like everything else, are subject to taxation. If I created the impression that they were tax free I apologise to hon. Members. As I was saying, the annual sum may be adjusted if the steamer or road services are altered, if freight rates or fares are changed, or—as is necessary in a long-term contract of this sort—if in any two consecutive years the surplus profits or the deficiency exceed £15,000.
I turn to the arrangements made for the building of new ships. The Agreement requires the Company to build one new passenger and mail steamer and one new cargo vessel. This may seem to hon. Members on both sides of the House to be a small programme when we remember that this Agreement is to run for a decade; but this is the immediate requirement, and it would be unrealistic to attempt to write into the Agreement as a contractual obligation the exact number of new vessels which may be required over the next ten years. The Company has, however, assured us that it will not hesitate to build or acquire additional new vessels if these are necessary for the fulfilment of the obligation upon it under the Agreement to provide a sufficient number of good, substantial and efficient vessels each of adequate power and speed.
The House may wish to know something of what the Company has done to renew and improve its assets during the last three years. First, as regards its cargo services, the vessel which the Company were required to build under the 1949 contract was launched in the autumn of 1950 and put into service in April, 1951, as the "Loch Carron." She is now operating as one of the two vessels providing the cargo service to the Outer Islands and the improved service which this fast modern vessel can give is very valuable.
In the early part of 1949 the Company acquired an ex-German vessel of 330 tons deadweight, and she is now operating


as the "Loch Frisa." In addition, the Company during 1950 was able to purchase a Swedish vessel of 750 tons deadweight which was built in 1946. She has been installed with refrigeration space for the carriage of fish, and is of a kind very suitable for the Company's cargo services. As the "Loch Dunvegan" she is giving a much better service on the Glasgow-Stornoway cargo run.
The Company has been able to sell two cargo vessels which had become uneconomic to run, namely the "Lochgorm" and the "Lochshiel." It has, however, had to retain the services of two old vessels, the "Clydesdale" and "Hebrides," in spite of earlier hopes for their disposal; but plans for their replacement are now in hand.
As regards passenger ships, the Company has not acquired any new ones for its passenger, mail and excursion services since the "Loch Seaforth" was built in 1947; but during the last three years certain alterations and improvements have been or are in process of being made. The "Lochfyne," which is used in winter on the Ardrishaig mail steamer service and in the summer on the Fort William-Oban trip, is to be reengined this year. The new engines, with which she is to be fitted, will increase her speed to 16 knots and it is expected that, when the work has been carried out, she will be entirely satisfactory and have a further useful life of about 15 years.
In addition, the "King George V," which is used in the summer on the popular Iona and Staffa excursion, was converted in 1951 from coal to oil burning. It is hoped that, with her increased reliability, she will be able to be used on other services in addition to the steamer excursion run. She has now a further useful life of between 10 and 15 years.
Hon. Members will, therefore, see that, although under the previous Agreement the Company were required to provide only one newly-built vessel, the "Loch Carron," it has acquired, in the last three years, in addition, two modern secondhand ships, the "Loch Frisa" and the "Loch Dunvegan," and is affecting major improvements to two others, the "Loch Fyne" and the "King George V."
In all, since 1946, the Company has put into service five vessels of post-war construction—the "Loch Seaforth," which

carries passengers and mails, the "Loch Broom," the "Loch Frisa," the "Loch Carron" and the "Loch Dunvegan," all of which are cargo vessels, either built to the Company's order or acquired secondhand. It has also put into service four new passenger launches built to its special design for ferry services. I think the House will agree that the Company's performance in the provision of new vessels has been as good as conditions generally have allowed.
As regards road transport, the position is that the Company has acquired a number of new coaches and goods vehicles, and its fleet now consists of 109 coaches and 25 goods vehicles. There is no doubt that the effect of the, subsidy has been to keep the Company's charges to a reasonable level. At present, MacBrayne's steamer freights are about 120 per cent. above pre-war. Steamer fares are only 55 per cent. above pre-war, which means that generally the increases in MacBrayne's freights and fares have been kept in step with similar increases of railway charges elsewhere.
Finally, I feel confident that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will join in paying tribute to the crews of the MacBrayne fleet. This has been so often said, and repeated on previous occasions when this contract has been under examination, that there is a risk it might appear to have become a matter of form. It would be a pity if that were the case.
Anyone who has travelled in these ships, and I confess I have not, although I have been very well informed by hon Friends who have, knows full well the high quality shown by the masters and crews in their duties in all weathers, working often to a difficult time schedule and in waters as hazardous as any around the coast of the United Kingdom. I cannot fail to mention the work of the drivers, mechanics, and superintendents of the road services, many of whom work under conditions which no one will pretend are easy, and the operating staff on sea and land, and the administrative and clerical staff in London, Glasgow, and the ports.
I mentioned previously that the Minister has the right to nominate a Government director. That director, since 1947, has been Sir Hector McNeill, not to be confused with the right hon. Gentle-


man, the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), but another distinguished Scotsman. He has accepted the invitation to remain in that post for a further year, if this Agreement is approved. His knowledge of the area, and his concern for the welfare of the people, make him a valuable adviser to Her Majesty's Government and to the Company. I feel sure the House will be glad to know that he will continue to give his services.
I therefore commend this Agreement to the House as an equitable arrangement, combining reasonable remuneration for the services to be rendered with a real stimulant to efficiency and adequate safeguards to the Exchequer. I trust hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing Scottish constituencies, will also concur in that view.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: One reason why the hon. Gentleman can be fairly confident that he is not going to suffer the full and logical consequences of the criticism from this side of the House is that we are perfectly well aware that we must keep the MacBrayne steamer service on the Minch, because it is absolutely essential to the economic and social life of the Islands. We have, perhaps, some reason to congratulate ourselves that this question is being handled by the Ministry of Transport. It is of some interest to note that we even had the presence of the Minister himself for a few minutes before he found the matter somewhat exhausting, but we are much happier with the hon. Gentleman than with some obscure overlord in another place.
I should like to join in the tribute paid to the captains and crews of the MacBrayne steamer service. I know it sounds all very formal, because we have said it time after time when this contract has come up, but I do so none the less sincerely, the more so because I have frequent contact with them. I pay my tribute with great sincerity, as I am sure other hon. Gentlemen representing the Highlands and Islands will do, to those men who run this service in all sorts of weather and under great difficulties at times. At the same time I should like to pay my tribute also to the men and women of the Post Office service in this part of the country.
The hon. Gentleman perhaps made one slip in what is a characteristic way when an Englishman is dealing with Scottish affairs, when he said we would welcome him as a Sassenach—we welcome him Sassenach or not—because he is coming "laden with gold." I wonder if he is coming laden with any more gold than he would take to any other part of the country to give something like a similar service.
I have always regarded it as insulting nonsense—I know it was not intended tonight in that way—to say that special financial concessionary arrangements are being made for the people of the Highlands and Islands in the form of the Post Office contract involved in this agreement and the subsidy to the MacBrayne steamer service. No such special arrangements are necessary between London and say Nottingham, Glasgow or Stirling, for the very obvious reasons that no crossing of between 40 and 80 miles of sea is involved. But in the Islands the sea is the highway, and it is no specially generous provision to ensure that the citizens of this country, who happen to be in the Western Isles or in the North-West Highlands, have access to the rest of the country, in which they are equal citizens with equal obligations which they equally discharge.
Therefore, if it comes to talk about amounts of money, it should be remembered that if there were no sea there would be a trunk road constructed and permanently maintained to the extent of 100 per cent., without any argument, without any 10-year contract, and without the Santa Claus attitude on the part of the Treasury, which does not always look too well as Santa Claus. This subsidy and mail contract is, in fact, cheaper than a trunk road service would be over a similar distance in any other part of the country. There is this difference at the same time, that no private individual or semi-private company would expect to be guaranteed profits of 5 per cent., taxed or tax-free, from a trunk road service, which would be borne entirely by the nation and the Treasury.
In this area of the Western Highlands and Islands, we pay full Income Tax and more than full Purchase Tax. We pay every indirect national impost of every kind, the same as citizens in any other part of the country. I want to get it absolutely clear that this Agree-


ment is not such a special gift or consideration, as some hon. Members like to think. Indeed, it is not going too far to say that because of the inaction of Governments and the lack of sense of that responsibility which they should by now have acquired, we pay more for our transport in the Highlands and Islands than do people in any other part of the country.
We pay more for our passenger fares, more for the freights for our goods, more for our food because of these excessive rates, and more for our coal, clothing, furniture, fishing gear, agricultural implements and gear of all kinds. Why, therefore, hon. Members should take the attitude that this is a special concessionary gift to that area, I cannot understand.
There is just that bitterness behind the criticism that we get of these things in the Highlands and Islands because the people know, to take just one instance, that in war-time, and at the very beginning of it, no less than 25 per cent. of the total of the Royal Naval Reserve came from the Western Isles of Scotland. I think it is true to say that their losses in the two wars, on land and on sea, were higher proportionately than those of any part of the country.
When it comes to peace-time—this is the other side of the picture—the unemployment and transport costs of the Western Isles today are also the highest of any part of Great Britain. These are two contrasting types of claim which it should not be possible to make at this time of day, and yet these things, unfortunately, are true. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not adopt the Santa Claus attitude in any offensive way. This measure is only, in fact, a part of the equalising of conditions as between the citizens of the Islands and the northern mainland and those in the rest of the country.
One of the things that we on this side criticise—and some hon. Members opposite have also criticised it—about the whole of this MacBrayne subsidised steamer—and, nowadays, bus and freight lorry—system, is that a certain test is applied which is rather offensive and, in my view, fully out of date with modern views of what a modern transport service ought to be. This is what Leslie Burgin said of the basis of the service—I remember him saying it in the House on

the occasion of the renewal of the contract dated December, 1938:
The test is always, 'Are the freight charges sufficient to bring in 5 per cent. on the ranking capital?', and the standard which any tribunal judging these fares is to have before it is, What is the amount necessary at the end of the year to provide a minimum return on the agreed capital?'
Not "Is the service sufficient," but "Are the freight charges sufficient to bring in 5 per cent. on the ranking capital?" and so on. Then he said that the Minister's own criterion—if there were disputes regarding the contract—must be this:
'What is the figure at which freight charges and fares ought to be stabilised in order to produce 5 per cent. on the agreed capital?'"-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1939; Vol. 343, c. 874.]
All the time there has been this guarantee of 5 per cent. dividend on the ranking capital, which, of course, has been increased over the years.
If we on this side of the House express the view, as we did on the last occasion and on occasions previous to that, that there should be a better control today, directly under responsible public auspices, in the interests of the people of the Highlands and Islands and not in the interests of a 5 per cent. dividend, then we need not ask anyone to excuse us for repeating it tonight.
Let me quote Mr. Tom Johnston, who is respected by Members on all sides of the House, and who said, in 1939:
The fundamental difference between the two sides of the House on this issue can be very briefly stated. We believe that the road to the Islands ought to be as much a public service as the roads are on any part of the mainland and that the inhabitants of the Outer Islands ought not to be compelled to yield a profit to a private company or to a semi-private company any more than the inhabitants of the mainland should be compelled at this time of the day to yield a profit to a private company operating the roads in the neighbourhood. A coastal, a sea, service to the inhabitants of those Outer Islands ought to be as much a communal service, rendered free and gratis to the local inhabitants, as are the road services on the mainland to the inhabitants of the mainland.
He went on to say:
For our part we would welcome any kind of proposal for a sea transport service owned and run by the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1939; Vol. 343, c. 875–6.]
Other Members from various parts of the House joined with him. The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) will forgive me for reminding


him of his maiden speech, delivered before his deterioration into a more characteristic Tory, and when still enthusiastic and full of the altruistic ardour of the radical pioneer fresh from the Highlands, speaking for people and not for 5 per cent. He said:
As regards steamer communication, is it possible to organise some system of public utility service on the lines of the London Passenger Transport Board, some organisation not left to private commercial enterprise? We are told by the steamship companies that they cannot possibly lower the freights now prevailing. In fact, MacBrayne's will tell you that without the subsidy which they receive from the Government they could not possibly carry on.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman finished that part of his speech with a sort of interim peroration:
I maintain that the welfare of the Highlanders and the inhabitants of the Western Isles should not be at the mercy of commercial enterprise…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1940; Vol. 363, c. 277.]
I do not think he expected very much mercy when he put it that way.
Well, that is broadly, in principle, the view of my party. We have not departed from that. I hope he has not, either. We do recognise the difficulties which MacBrayne's were facing during the postwar years. The Government had to face the same sort of difficulties. There was the requirement of new vessels to be considered, and problems arising from war requisitioning. There were 101 things—the immense increase in the costs and other matters—to be worked out before a new contract could be issued. Therefore, with rather bad grace, and still with all the sort of criticisms so eloquently expressed pre-war by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll and Mr. Tom Johnston, we allowed MacBrayne's to run the post-war service, though perhaps not in the way we should have liked it to be run.
It is not for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that his predecessor did not agree that there was a better way of running the MacBrayne's services. In 1949 I said, I admit,
I could not quite agree with the Minister of Transport when he said that the only agency he could conceive which could carry out these services efficiently was MacBrayne's. There is the agency of the Transport Commission. At the time when the Transport Bill was before Standing Committee—

and the hon. Gentleman was on that committee, so was I—
the Minister undertook to draw the attention of the Commission—without discussing the merits of the case—of taking over the MacBrayne steamer service by agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2417.]
The hon. Gentleman was on that Committee, as were several of my hon. Friends, and he will remember that undertaking. The only thing I wonder is whether the undertaking was carried out.

Mr. Braithwaite: I was not disputing that these views have been expressed from the benches opposite. Whatever his theoretical views may have been, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) did in fact make the contract which I described to the House.

Mr. MacMillan: I am not disputing that he had to accept a situation which did not permit of a better solution, and in face of the limitations and difficulties of the post-war period. I am excusing him to that extent. But I should like to know how far the Transport Commission have considered, at his request, or at the request of his successors, including in recent weeks, the Prime Minister, the question of whether they might take over by agreement the MacBrayne steamer service.
This service affects every development, and has prevented a great deal of the development we should have liked to see in the Highlands and Islands. It has frustrated and dwarfed economic development in many places. High freight charges and the absence of a good, adequate, regular and reasonably cheap transport service is reflected directly in the fall of population. While the Scottish population has increased over the years, in a matter of 80 years the population of the Highlands and Islands has gone down by about 20 per cent. Because of high transport charges and the high cost of living, we find the smaller places dying out, while the area as a whole is desperately trying to hold its present population, which is only possible through the old people living longer nowadays.
Fishing cannot prosper, and neither can agriculture under excessive freight burdens. Transport costs make every effort at development a sure failure in


advance, and make a mockery of any form of enterprise so far as the Islands especially are concerned. I know that all that is, even officially, recognised, but not sufficiently in practical terms of either finance or transport improvement. A transport service by sea is the whole basis of Island life and work and development. Everyone and every Committee that has ever considered Highland problems and questions—de-population, agriculture, fisheries and the rest—has come to the conclusion that transport is the basis and life-line of all the economic and social life of the area.
The Highlands and Islands are not asking for any concession beyond what could be called some equalising action; something to give them an equal start in development and enable them to make up for the handicaps of remoteness from supplies and markets, of distances and geographical difficulties of all kinds. This —however much of a Santa Claus gesture the hon. Gentleman might like to make—is only a very small part of the ultimate solution of our main transport problem.
There are one or two local matters which I should like to see dealt with, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll would agree. I should like to see the Island of Barra having a much more direct service, and the Island of Tiree and the inner Islands with their own service. Both the hon. and gallant Member and I have experienced all the difficulties in this connection in travelling both ways when on constituency business. I should like to see the Island of North Uist, which has no air service, with a much improved steamer service. If they are not to have again the air service they used to have at one time let us go back some way, at least, to the days when they had in fact a five-and even at one time a six-day a week steamer service in the Outer Isles. If they could get half that today, they would be immensely happy and grateful.
I should like to put in a special plea for North Uist, even within the framework of this Agreement. I know that we cannot amend it. But I should like to see whatever influence the Secretary of State has, along with his numerous aides and helpers—and the more the merrier, as far as I am concerned—and the influence of the Minister of Transport, the Post

Office and all the rest being used to put on all the pressure they can on MacBrayne's, even within the limits of the finance supplied, to try to improve the frequency and programme of the services to North Uist Island and to give Barra a more direct service. Stornoway today is pretty adequately served; there are no complaints there, and I am not going to create any local complaints that are not real.
I ask the Minister to have a look at what is being done to implement the Ferries Report. I should like to know what is happening about the projects mentioned in the Ferries Report, which the Minister had in his hands on the 30th December, 1947, and about which we have heard very little since. We are still waiting to know, for example, what has happened about the North Ford Causeway in the Outer Isles, which the Royal Engineers were to survey last winter, but which has not been surveyed yet. There are other ferries and bridge and causeway projects in the Report. What is happening about them?
Lastly, I want to say that MacBrayne's are responsible for many road services by bus and lorry, and, so far as most people in the Highland and Island areas are concerned, they do not object when MacBrayne's, for economic and other reasons, cut out certain local calls by sea, provided that they give an undertaking that they will provide an adequate and no costlier alternative service overland. I think that places which can be supplied overland are infinitely more fortunate than the Islands, which cannot have that alternative.
I would make this plea—knowing that, if MacBrayne's can provide a service by road, in many cases, it will be inevitable that many local calls by sea will have to be cut out. Let us try to help them to build up their service by making it possible for them to use the roads, by making those roads usable. It is one thing to plough through rough water, and another to keep a bus ploughing day in and day out over the roads in the Western Highlands and Islands. There is considerable feeling among road users in these parts that, again, they are paying more than other road users in other parts of the country.
There is the much worse problem of wear and tear, as well as that of the cost


of repairs. I shall not harry the House at this late hour with examples of the cost of sending goods to and from the Western Highlands and Islands to the south. It is almost impossible to develop an export industry in the Islands, or for a crofter or fisherman or other producer to branch out and make anything of a livelihood today from his croft or his fishing boat because of the exorbitant freight charges to and from the Islands.
I read a letter the other day from Ross and Cromarty, from a man who wanted to send some machine tools from Stornoway to England. MacBrayne's, he said, quoted him 16s., and the Post Office quoted 4s. I know that there are a lot of things that can be sent through the post, but, if it is the fact that things can be sent four times cheaper through the post, I guarantee that in future some queer packages will be in the hands of the Post Office, rather than in those of MacBrayne's.
It really is an impossible situation when it can cost as much to send goods from London or the Midlands, or even from Glasgow, to the Western Islands as it does to send goods to Australia or the other side of the Atlantic. But that has happened in case after case.
It is only once in ten years that we can discuss MacBrayne's at this length, and so I hope hon. Members will forgive me for having detained the House for so long. But, I do hope that the Minister and his colleagues will realise that I have been impartial so far as this lack of a transport policy is concerned. There is no single problem which is with us in the Highlands and Islands so persistently as this problem of sea and overland transport. Every sort of development depends upon solving this basic problem of transport. It is all to the good that there should be plenty of Highland development schemes and planning; but without adequate transport, there can be no real development; and without economic development, I doubt if we shall be able to hold our own much longer against the other overshadowing problem of depopulation.

12.33 a.m.

Major D. McCallum (Argyll): I felt when I first came into this House that MacBrayne's steamer services might be

better run if they were nearly a national service in the sense that they were an important part in a national undertaking. Of course, I realised that during the war years nothing could be done, but after the war, when a Socialist Government took office with such a tremendous majority, I then said, "We are going to see MacBrayne's nationalised."
What happened? After great deliberation, and consultations, no doubt between all the Departments concerned in the Government, it was decided that not only could MacBrayne's not be nationalised, but that all the coastal shipping services around the kingdom, also, could not be nationalised. Perhaps that day will come; we must all wait and see. So far, however, hon. Members opposite have realised that this was not a feasible proposition, and I bow to the superior knowledge of the Government of the time.
I should like to join with what has been said tonight by way of tribute to the personnel of the MacBrayne staff, and especially to the captains and crews of the steamers. The weather in which they have had to sail their ships during the past winter has been exceedingly severe, and if one makes the crossing between Tiree and Barra very often, one realises that although the crews may have been a little short-tempered, or did not do as much as usual for the comfort of passengers, they have shown great courage and gallantry.
If I may, I should like to touch upon a few of the points which have been raised, and if I cannot have an answer tonight, I hope I may have it later. Fitst, the position between MacBrayne's and the local authorities, and particularly the county councils. In view of recent developments, the county councils in the West Highlands are taking over ferries and often piers served by the MacBrayne ships; in one area, where the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) comes from, the county council has taken over the arrangements for ferrying cattle out to the MacBrayne steamers when they arrive in the loch.
I hope that the Scottish Office or the Ministry of Transport, whichever is concerned, will be able to recommend to MacBrayne's that they act in the closest co-operation because the local authorities are going to great expense and they are


among the poorest county councils in rateable values in the whole country. If they are going to put up the money to run these piers and ferries they are entitled to expect the closest possible co-operation by the steamship company.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central): Am I to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks that Messrs. MacBrayne are not at the moment giving the maximum co-operation to the local authorities?

Major McCallum: There have been disputes in recent times. I will not say that they are not giving close cooperation, but there have been disputes over certain landings, particularly ferry landings, and as these ferries are being taken over by the county councils it is hoped that the company and the local authorities will work together. I am encouraged to put this view forward because I am doing so at the request of one of the local authorities who raised this question with me some time ago.
The next point I wish to raise, and which has already been raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), is about the steamer service, which is called the Inner Islands Service; the boat which leaves Oban, calls at Tobermory, Coll and Tiree and then goes on to Barra and Lochboisdale. Would it not be possible to cut out the run between Tiree, Barra and Lochboisdale?
It is much more convenient for the people of these islands to be served by the boat from Kyle or Mallaig. It gives a much easier crossing of the Minch than the crossing from Tiree. There are numerous occasions owing to bad weather when the boat is unable to call at Tiree. The passengers on board then have to face a five. hours' rough crossing of the Minch. I think it is true to say that 75 per cent. of the crossings are rough. The passengers, including old ladies and sick children, have to be carried on to Barra and Lochboisdale and brought back again across the Minch.
If something can be done, I think it would be of great benefit to both the peoples of the Outer and the Inner Isles. I have raised this matter before, but have always been told that it is impossible to make a terminus at Tiree. It is only a short crossing from Gott Bay to Bunessan, where a boat can lie in perfect

safety all night if the weather forecast is bad. I am very doubtful about the question of it being too dangerous. In previous debates I have pressed for the mail boat from West Loch Tarbert to Islay to call at the Isle of Colonsay, but I was always told that it would be too dangerous.
But after five years agitation they are now calling four times a week at Colonsay, and even in the winter months they are calling there twice a week. Cannot the Company experiment again with this service which ran during the war? During the war Tiree was a terminus and boats lay up there over night. I am sure that something could be done to cut out that uncomfortable, wasteful, and wholly unnecessary crossing of the Minch between Tiree and Barra.
Some of the people of Barra—the farmers—will say that they require their cattle to be brought to the Oban market and that they must have the service. But such cattle are always brought in by special cargo-boats. I hope the Under-Secretary will try that crossing this coming winter once or twice. I am sure he will use his influence with the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport and that between them they will decide that the crossing can be dispensed with.
May I raise another point about this Inner Island Service? During the summer months the start for inward passengers from Tiree, who are generally bound for Glasgow or farther south, is 5 a.m., when they have to be on the pier waiting for the boat. There is no waiting room. Generally, it is raining. The discomfort is complete. Is that really necessary? During the winter the service starts at 7 a.m. Why should not that be the hour all the year round, unless we can get the change in the service altogether?
I complained to the Secretary of State not long ago that intending passengers on the islands do not know when the boat is arriving, or whether the boat has passed by and decided not to call at all. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking up this matter with the Post Office, and he has recommended to Argyll County Council, and no doubt to others, that telephones be installed in the ferry or pier masters' houses, so that information can be passed about estimated times of arrival or about the weather


being too bad. A move has already begun and I hope that it may be extended to all the islands.
Another point is the arrival of the mail boats in Oban. Generally, they try to run to connect with some train, the midday or afternoon train to Stirling and Glasgow. There are occasions in bad weather when boats arrive a quarter or a half hour late. Would it not be possible for the Company to arrange with the Railway Executive to hold up the train leaving Oban station for at least a certain time, to give the passengers on the boat an opportunity to make the connection? That is done at Southampton, Dover, and elsewhere: why not there? We always get the same answer—that the trains not only have to connect with the boats but with other trains at Stirling or Glasgow, and that it is a single line between Oban and Stirling. It is not beyond the ingenuity of the Railway Executive to make an arrangement whereby the train can wait a reasonable time, although I do not suggest it should wait in bad weather, when the boat comes in, say, five hours late.
Then there is the question of the protection of the mails. I have had recently a number of complaints that on certain boats, like the Lochinvar, which serves the Sound of Mull, the mails are stored on deck and in bad weather they are not covered with tarpaulin, so that they suffer damage. Then, when they arrive at ports such as Craignure, where mails have to be discharged by ferry boat, the mails are not covered and they get even wetter, and by the time they are delivered they have suffered quite a bit of damage. Could consideration be given to the question of the Company instructing their personnel to cover the mails with tarpaulins during this bad weather? It is only a small point, but I have received various complaints about postal packets arriving soaked and useless at the end of the journey, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Western Isles.
In opening this debate the Minister mentioned that the Company were to build two new boats—one for passengers and one for cargo—in the course of this contract. Can we be told for what service they are intended? It would be very interesting to know, and I dare say that

if we could know the complaints which are received by hon. Members standing for the constituencies concerned would be considerably reduced. It is my personal hope that the passenger boat is intended for the Sound of Mull.
Another question—which has already been raised on numerous occasions—is that of the high freight rates. What the authorities do not realise when we make complaints about the high rates which are charged by MacBrayne's—and it may not be MacBrayne's fault—is that these rates are charged on top of railway charges, and freight is already paid to the port of loading. Instead of the Islands being a nice, cheap place to live in as they used to be, they are becoming impossibly expensive, due entirely to the very high freight rates. I suggest to the Ministry of Transport that just as the white fish industry are by way of working out a flat rate for white fish, a flat rate could be worked out for freight rates in respect of the Highlands and Islands services. I am sure I shall be told that it cannot be done; but I think it might be considered.
One of the freights which causes a great deal of complaint on the services is the freight charged for cars. Cars to the Isles of Mull and Islay, and so on, are charged at very high freights. It is a complaint of the tourist people concerned that the freights are so high that the people who used to come to the Islands for the summer holidays can no longer bring their cars with them.
Finally, I should like to mention the bus services. There again, the operators —particularly the drivers—in some of the winter months have to cope with dreadful conditions. They cope with them extremely well. I would only say that there are complaints, and if any hon. Member of a constituency served by MacBrayne's road services does forward to the Company complaints they have received I hope the Company will not feel that we are making a direct dig at them. They are complaints which would be made about any other service. But there is one section where I think MacBrayne's could very well run one of their short bus services—between Inveraray and Dalmally. They run a service from Glasgow to Inveraray, Lochgilphead, Ardrishaig and Campbeltown.
There are services from Glasgow to Oban; but the trunk road from Inveraray


to Dalmally is not served by any bus whatsoever MacBrayne's run very good services in the Fort William area and other areas. I would suggest they might include in this contract a service connecting these two main trunk services. I have raised a number of local points, but, as the hon. Member for Western Isles said, this is probably the only time for 10 years when we shall have an opportunity of raising any points on this MacBrayne contract, and I make no apology for it. MacBrayne's always claim they are the Highlands and that the Highlands are MacBrayne's. Therefore, MacBrayne's must not be too much put out if the people of the Highlands often have grievances and complaints to make to them.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland): As one of the only two hon. Members of the House who represent a constituency composed of islands, I would like to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Isles, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), in what they said about the appalling freight charges in the Highlands generally. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the Highlands depends on whether we can reduce these charges or not. In my constituency, we have not the pleasure, or the pain, of travelling in MacBrayne's boats, and, as a result, we have not been insulted by the Treasury with any offer of gold—to our great regret. But, we suffer very much from the same troubles as have been mentioned already.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Western Isles stressing one point. To islands, whether in the west or north, the sea passage is their main road. It is their vital link and, I think, they have a strong case for having Government assistance in keeping that link in good working order. I should like to press further the point already mentioned, that when one has reached the main centres—Stornoway, Kirkwall, or Lerwick, or wherever it is, people who live in outer islands, still have further journeys to make. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll mentioned that one has to pay the rail charge before ever coming to the boats. And I would agree and go further. When one's goods are unloaded off the steamer, one has

further charges imposed to get them to one's croft.
It should be stressed that the whole economy of the Highlands has altered greatly in the last 50 years. It is no longer an economy based on subsistence crofting but on trade, and at every stage in their trade the local people are up against freight charges. A year ago or so, during the debate on this Motion, I looked up some of the costs. They are comparable, whether in the Western Isles or in my own area. I do not believe that people in the South realise what terrific burdens they are. These are some examples: feedingstuffs, 33s.; sugar, 40s.; seeds, 60s., between Leith and Kirkwall. Then, one has extra charges in the more remote islands. In the last six or seven months these prices have increased by 10 to 25 per cent., 5s. 10d. on fuel, 6s. 8d. on groceries to Lerwick, for instance. Petrol, if taken to Whalsay, one of the islands in my constituency, would have a charge of 18s. 3d. on a 50-gallon drum between Lerwick and the island.
Then, in addition to the problems of the steamer services themselves all the islands of Scotland are extremely badly served by piers. In some places in the Western Isles and in the Shetlands there are no piers at all. One has to load goods into a boat and an extra charge is made for unloading them ashore. If the Government is to bring back trade and increase agricultural production in Scotland they must consider this whole subject of freights and transport right through from the factory to the croft. In the Western Isles the Government have taken the step of paying a subsidy. They have not done so in the Orkneys and Shetland, but in what ever form it is given I think some Government assistance is needed. A comprehensive policy should be developed which will, in the long run, raise the population, increase trade, and so reduce costs of freight, but in the short-term some direct help must be given.
The subsidy, as I understand it, was £240,000 and is now raised to £360,000. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the capital employed in MacBrayne's is today, because I think there is some confusion on the matter? For instance, the North of Scotland Company is paying 15 per cent. on their issued capital, and I understand MacBrayne's are entitled to


pay 5 per cent. on their issued capital, but certainly in the case of the North company I know it amounts to less than 1 per cent. on the capital employed. It would also be interesting to know whether in the view of the Government this is a subsidy based on any particular freight charges. Is it to keep the charges at a certain level or to reduce them, and how far are the forecasts of freight charges taken into account? Frequently we are told in the Orkneys and Shetland that our freights are no higher than those in the Western Isles. It is cold comfort to be told that our friends are just as badly off as we are. What we want to know is do the Government foresee a progressive reduction in freight charges, or on what is their policy based?
Have the Government any views on the type of new ships to be built? There is the problem of piers and anchorages in bad weather. In the Orkneys and Shetlands we have not only our main shipping company but smaller companies, sometimes with one boat, serving the smaller islands. Are the Government prepared to give them some assistance or to assist in the building of a small type of boat which will give more economical service and reduce freight charges? Mention has been made of one boat with refrigeration space, but are the Government taking any steps to provide companies in the West and North with ships really equipped to move quick frozen fish? I believe that there is no such ship at present operating.
I would say this lastly to the Government, that they must not leave the general problem too long. We must leave some proposals for freight equalization and reduction. They must not think that by giving the subsidy this year to one shipping line they are solving this difficulty. The fact is that it is becoming progressively worse. As the population falls the burden on the survivors increases, and it is really reaching the point where the Government must give their views on the long-term policy and state their short-term plans to help the islands of Scotland as a whole.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: We all congratulate the new Minister of Transport on his appointment, but regret, particularly those who represent the West Highlands, the forced

resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) who has particular knowledge of the West coast of Scotland, and sincerely hope the new Minister will acquaint himself with the appalling conditions of transport and communications in the West Highlands today.
The main object of my remarks tonight is to deal with how the Agreement affects the western seaboard north of Kyle of Lochalsh, as it affects the western seaboard of my constituency of Ross and Cromarty. The second paragraph on page 2 of the Copy of the Memorandum of Agreement states:
The Minister of Transport may also require the Company to add to, alter or discontinue any of the general services.
I think I am right in saying that MacBrayne's have discontinued all the cargo services serving the mainland north of Kyle of Lochalsh, except for Scoraig and Applecross.
I have no doubt that from MacBrayne's point of view that decision is correct, but it is imperative that alternative services should be provided to meet the needs of the people there. The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) have mentioned how the sea route is the main road for those people but when facilities are taken away from that main road, it is even more essential that adequate alternative services should be put in their place.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for the Western Isles that the £360,000 is no gift to the Highlands. The increased freight charges, which have been mentioned by all previous speakers, are an intolerable burden and are virtually a tax on the existence of the people living in those areas. I hope that the time will come when this problem will be tackled really seriously and effectively by the Government.
I was a member of a small sub-committee of the Highland Panel that travelled down the western seaboard north of Kyle of Lochalsh when it was decided that MacBrayne's should withdraw their cargo services to the mainland ports. We found that despite the bad communications and the appalling state of the roads, the local inhabitants were not patronising MacBrayne's services. I do not think that MacBrayne's were


necessarily to blame, although there were complaints of irregularity of service. It was mainly due to the double handling which the people have to make when a ship arrives in port. The people have to handle the goods at quite considerable cost from the port to their homes.
People in these areas are now using road transport, for the simple reason that they can get the goods direct to their own farmsteads and to their very doors. We found that instead of bringing goods from Greenock or Glasgow, as in the past, all the inhabitants were bringing their goods from the East coast—from Easter Ross, Invergordon, Dingwall and Inverness. All their fertilisers, seeds, seed potatoes, farm implements and practically everything, in fact, was brought by road transport from the east. That was the reason why the MacBrayne services were not being used.
One matter on which I should like an assurance from the Minister concerns MacBrayne's giving up slipways or piers. If it is not definitely arranged that they do give up calling then the piers and slipways will be bound to fall into disrepair unless they are taken over by some responsible body. We can well understand MacBrayne's not carrying on these uneconomic services, but there are still some areas which have no roads at all and no adequate alternative service could be provided.
If the House will permit me I should like to deal with two local places in my constituency, Scoraig and Apple-cross. At the moment the cargo for Scoraig is transferred from a small boat, a photograph of which I have here, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas Hamilton) would be good enough to hand it to the Minister. This is a picture of the type of boat by which they have to transport their cargo. Mac-Brayne's want to stop calling at Scoraig, and I have no doubt they are justified in that.
I had a letter from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Perth and Kinross (Mr. Snadden) the Joint Under-Secretary, in which he says:
The county council have been asked to consider a modified scheme for the road shore and slipway at Badlaurach and improvement to the slipway at Scoraig.
He goes on to say:

If the county council agrees we shall do our best to have the grant approved without delay.
With regard to "do our best to have the grant approved without delay," I would like an assurance from the Minister that if they agree to that modified scheme they will get the grant. Further, the letter goes on to add:
Badlaurach slipway needs a provisional order. I hope this will go a long way to improving conditions.
If the slipway at Badlaurach is not improved the whole object of the service is lost. By making the slipway adequate goods will be brought by road, as is happening all over the western seaboard now, and be ferried across to Scoraig thus saving MacBrayne's from having to call in that region at all.
With regard to Applecross, if one looks at the first schedule of the Agreement it will be seen that on the Stornoway service between Stornoway, Kyle of Lochalsh and Mallaig calls at Applecross on the outward and inward journeys, except from October to March inclusive when inward calls will be made in emergencies only. What happens in that period is that if one wants to make a short journey to Kyle one has to go all the way to Stornoway and wait there until the steamer comes back to cross the Minch to Kyle. That is the only public service out of that region during those months. It is an intolerable position and there will never be any development in the area at all so long as those conditions prevail.
There is no doubt that the best way to serve Applecross is by a ferry from Toscaig to the Kyle of Lochalsh unless a proper road, or two roads as it happens, are to be made in that region. We hope that one day we shall see those roads made. MacBrayne's are not attracted by this ferry service although a ferry service from Toscaig to the Kyle of Lochalsh on the Stornoway run would save 20 minutes, and they could well utilise that 20 minutes by discharging at one of the main ports.
If MacBrayne's are not attracted I have sent a letter to the Scottish Office pointing out that there are some local men in the area who would be willing to have a shot at running a service, provided, I imagine, that they could have the postal contract and some initial assistance. If such a service is provided I am sure it


would mean that Applecross would develop, because the West Highland survey made by Mr. Fraser Darling points out that there is still a great deal of agricultural development possible in that area and small industries which could be developed. The kind of reply we get to a suggestion for such a service is, "You cannot have a ferry service until you have a pier," and it would seem to be vice versa. Perhaps one result of that will be that we shall get the road built.
I am sure we all wish MacBrayne's good fortune. Mention has been made of the hardships of the captains and crews of this service and the severe difficulties with which they have to contend. I think it is due to a great extent to the economic state of the area which has to be served. I hope that the Minister will consider these suggestions and that they will help MacBrayne's in maintaining a service which is so essential to the people of the Western Isles.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire): I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in a debate which has a purely Highland flavour. I think I may, because of my Argyllshire background, and my interest in this problem. I do not think there is any problem more important than this to the Highlands. After all, there is a fair amount of money involved and while I agree with the arguments about the importance of maintaining the transport facilities in the Highlands I think we have a duty to examine the sum which is being allocated.
This sum of £360,000 is not a small one, and the indication is that there is to be allowed a 5 per cent. dividend on the issued capital. That is not to say that it will be paid, but I think the Under-Secretary ought to tell us, when winding-up the debate, what was the estimation in the minds of the negotiators of the interest that would be paid on loan capital. They must have had some sum in mind. They say they will not allow more than 5 per cent. to be paid, although there is an indication that 6 per cent. could be paid. A rate of 5 per cent. on loan capital today is a very good investment, and there are many businesses which would be very pleased to be earning that amount on their invested capital.
There is another point at which we ought to look in this connection. The Agreement provides for 5 per cent. or £35,000 in each financial year, and that might lead one to assume that the issued capital is £700,000. One would assume that some effort to control the issued capital—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): No. The issued capital is £500,000, and the capital employed is £700,000, and the figures which the hon. Gentleman mentioned refer to the capital employed, not the issued capital.

Mr. Manuel: What I was doing was multiplying by 20 the outside figure of profits which is being allowed—£35,000.
If the loan capital is only £500,000, that means that there is to be something more than 5 per cent. I hope that the Under-Secretary follows the point, and that we shall be told what the real figure is.
I understand that the figure of £360,000 which is incorporated in this Agreement is an increase over the last Agreement of £120,000, and we should be told what is the increase in the amount of issued capital over the last Agreement. There is bound to be some increase there also, and I hope the Under-Secretary has taken the point.
I was interested in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) about roads. The roads on the mainland and on the islands are not in the condition in which they ought to be, nor are they having the expenditure upon them which they ought to have. After all, MacBrayne's are running a very large fleet of buses, and will be paying a considerable sum into the Road Fund by means of their road licences. I do not know just what that figure will be, but it must be considerable, and an augmentation of something that would be very small if MacBrayne's were not running on these roads.
I also want to ask if MacBrayne's are expected to maintain piers where necessary by means of the aid given them by this Agreement. There is, not only in the islands but on the mainland, a great necessity for piers to be kept in repair, and I am thinking particularly of the pier at Salen, Loch Sunart, where there is only a slipway, but where there used to


be a pier with water deep enough to take ships at any time. Now there is only a pier well in the bay and on certain tides the steamer cannot call there at all; that has caused great inconvenience.
Also, I should like to ask—and I understand this from some members of the Highland Panel—whether there are to be some new craft to ply on Loch Shiel between Acharacle and Glenfinnan. Could the Under-Secretary give us any information about that? Is this new craft included in this expenditure for this year, or if not, when is it expected that the decision of the Highland Panel for this new craft will be brought into operation?
Is any of the subsidy being spent to keep the service running between Glenfinnan and Acharacle, on Loch Shiel? I hope the House will not think that I am encroaching too much, but I travel up there as frequently as I can, and if there is to be a new boat, it will be a great boon for the people resident along the shores of Loch Shiel. Scattered crofters live in this area, and they would benefit; and if this new craft is to be provided, it would be a great advantage at the Acharacle end if it could take cattle and sheep to Glenfinnan, where they could be taken on to Fort William and make better prices, instead of their owners being forced to accept hard bargains as happens sometimes at Salen.

Major McCallum: The Clanranald boat does carry both sheep and cattle.

Mr. Manuel: Yes, but I am also thinking of better accommodation; but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member knows it better, because he takes such an intense interest in the activities of the Highland Panel.
I do hope that if the new craft does begin to operate on Loch Shiel we shall have some really good facilities for passenger traffic; for it could be made well worth while in the summer for tourists on Loch Shiel, going up to Glenfinnan via Acharacle, or, alternatively, from Glenfinnan to Acharacle and Fort William. If this does come about, I hope, also, that the men employed on the new ship will enjoy better conditions of service than in the past, and that wages will be more in conformity with what is generally paid by MacBrayne's in other areas where they ply their vessels. These

are all questions which I think ought to have been put tonight, and I hope that we may have an answer to them when the Under-Secretary comes to reply.

1.25 a.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that we have a duty to examine this sum of £360,000. I also agree very much with what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, that the whole question of MacBrayne's is related to the general Highland problem. The hon. Gentleman advised the Government, very soundly, not to leave this problem until it was too late to deal with it adequately.
What, in fact, is happening is that we are spending greatly increased sums each year on these services. This sum has gone up enormously in recent years, not due to any fault on the part of the company but to circumstances which have made the cost of operating boats greater as the years have gone by. But we have not kept pace with the problem. We have not kept pace with the depopulation of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which is still continuing.
Surely we must earnestly consider this matter. Are the services really effective? Are they giving the service we want? I must say I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) when he says he deplores the consideration of whether the charges were sufficient to pay 5 per cent. instead of whether the service is efficient. Probably the allowing of 5 per cent. would be a cheaper way of getting a good service than by nationalising MacBrayne's.
What we have to consider is whether the service we are getting from MacBrayne's is adequate. Nobody disputes the qualities of the skippers and the crews. I notice that one of the provisions of the Agreement is that all vessels shall be
subject to the approval of the Minister and…be fully manned and commanded by a skilful Master.
The masters of MacBrayne's are extremely skilful and the crews are very hard working. Exactly the same applies to the men operating their bus services.


I heartily agree that they entirely fulfil the provision that they
shall provide a sufficient number of competent, steady, honest and careful drivers of good character and duly licensed to drive.
But I received in my mail this morning a letter from a constituent of mine who lives in the Isle of Skye complaining about a journey which she made in one of MacBrayne's steamers. She states:
As one of your constituents, may I bring the following grievance to your notice, not that I can hope for any redress, but something may be done to help other unfortunates in similar circumstances.
Whether a service is nationalised or not, when it supplies the public in the shape of a monopoly one must always be careful, and it is up to Parliament to see that the true relationship between the public and the operator is not destroyed, that a proper service is given and that a take it or leave it attitude is not adopted. This lady goes on to complain that:
On Wednesday, 16th inst. at 8.45 p.m. I left Castlebay, Barra, on the s.s. 'Lochness' in the hope of catching the 'Loch Mor' at Lochboisdale and getting to Armadale the following day. When a short distance out of Lochboisdale, the 'Lochness' broke down and we lay anchored there for about six hours, while the 'Loch Mor' sailed by. We were stranded in Lochboisdale all day Thursday and all day Friday.
When the 'Loch Mor' returned on Friday evening we were informed she was returning direct to Oban and would not take any passengers to Mallaig. She was due to return to Lochboisdale on Sunday afternoon, which would have meant passengers spending a night in Mallaig. Those of us who had to get back to Skye had then to take bus to Benbecula, plane to Stornoway and 'Loch Seaforth' to Kyle.
Messrs. MacBrayne, when presented with a note of expenses incurred (due entirely to their fault) denied all liability. Surely, when they are so handsomely subsidised by the Government, they should be compelled to show some consideration to the travelling public.
I think that letter is really worth bringing forward in the light of the provision of this enormous subsidy which we are to vote to MacBrayne's.
My constituent goes on to cite another grievance: that when they did arrive at Kyle from Stornoway in the early morning she could get no response to persistent knocking at the Lochalsh Hotel. Finally, at 7 a.m. she was able to take the ferry to Kyleakin where they were most courteously received at the Marine Hotel. That is an attitude we do not want to

see encouraged. The matter should be brought to the attention of MacBrayne's, like similar matters of that kind. We do expect for this enormous sum we give every year a good service.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) said, MacBrayne's are rather apt to think themselves the Highlands, and the Highlands would certainly not be the same place without MacBrayne's. We have to be grateful to them, but we have not been competing in the battle of depopulation. A survey was made in 1890 for passenger services on the west of Scotland, with a view to improving communications, and it was then suggested that somebody should undertake a service going all the way up the west coast to Cape Wrath. That has not been done, and there is no adequate road up towards the north west, which is probably the worst part of the whole British Isles from the communications point of view.
It is not only that we are depopulating the Highland area, but we are missing a great opportunity. With our overcrowded island today it is imperative we should reverse this trend, bring back trade, and achieve repopulation. I would suggest, in this connection, that we should look ahead. In the Memorandum of Agreement it says the Minister of Transport may also require the Company to add to, alter, or discontinue any of the general service.
I do not think there is anything to prevent Messrs. MacBrayne's from undertaking flying boat services up the west coast of Scotland. That would indeed be a really useful lifeline and bring the people living on the west coast very much nearer and within easier reach of their markets. I suggest a service from the Clyde to Oban, Tobermory, Mallaig, the Isle of Skye and up to Ullapool; and one from Fort William through the Great Glen from Inverness to Fort Augustus, Fort William, Oban, and the Clyde; and one from Inverness through the Great Glen to the Outer Islands. This would make a tremendous difference to life in the whole Western Isles.
While we on this side approve this new Agreement we at least have got reason to question whether in every respect the MacBrayne services are being as efficient as they might be—whether they are, in


fact, making the best of the opportunities which exist. I trust that Messrs. MacBrayne's and the people in charge will consider very carefully indeed the remarks made in this debate.

1.34 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I was rather interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) about flying boats. Perhaps some of that American capital that has become quite legendary might be used by private individuals in their pursuit of profit in that part of the world. I do not doubt that if there had been any profit at all to be made there, perhaps in some hotels scattered around that area, private enterprise—

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that 20 years ago I tried for two years to operate flying boat services in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I want to return to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. The document he was discussing is entitled "Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland," but I felt that he was going over a purely financial document that might have been applicable to any other part of Great Britain, and that he failed properly to realise the importance of this service to these islands and the people living in them.
I should like to stress a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), that the road to the Isles is a sea road and, as such, should be a public service for the people of the Highlands and Islands. I thought there was a sense of smug satisfaction about the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, as though he were saying, "I am bringing you gold." If he is bringing gold it is not for the people of the Highlands and Islands, It may be to look after every conceivable contingency for Messrs. MacBrayne's, to whom he is now bringing a guarantee of £35,000 a year or 5 per cent., whichever is the greater—and is also limiting their possible loss or gain to £7,000 a year.
He seemed to think that there was some incentive there; but he failed to explain paragraph 19 (4) which states that if there is a loss exceeding £15,000 in two

successive years the Company and the Minister must get together and work out a just sum to cover that loss. So what we are really discussing is not just the £4 million. I think it is most unfair that this question of a vital service to a very important part of Scotland—which will not be properly discussed again for 10 years —should be tagged on to the end of a busy day. I do not think that is doing justice to the interests of the Highlands and Islands.
After all, the conditions of life of the Islanders are entirely dependent on this service. There is no reason for satisfaction. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "The freights have only gone up by 120 per cent. over pre-war and the steamer passenger rates by about 55 per cent." But what were they pre-war? I should like to take Stornoway for an example—and it is probably the most favourable example I could take. Does not he realise that the cost of living there, as compared with Inverness, is 2s. in the £ more, and that even a loaf of bread is 2d. more in Stornoway than in Inverness? And as one goes out to the Outer Islands it is even more. Everything which these people require is raised in price because of the failure of the Government to make this a proper public service.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am not quite clear what Government the hon. Gentleman is complaining about when he says they have failed to make this a public service.

Mr. Ross: The only Government I can complain about at the present time is the present one. I have complained before.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Western Isles tonight was not exactly completely new. I can remember making the same speech when the Labour Government were in power. I took the trouble to read the debate which took place in 1938, when the hon. Member for Western Isles made a very much stronger speech—in the company of Toni Johnston, David Kirkwood and others—to Mr. Leslie Burgin, who answered the debate. The point is that the people of the Islands are living under these conditions because of the failure of successive Governments to recognise their rights.
There is no other part of the country which is bearing the burden the Highlands and the people of the Islands are bearing at present. The burden borne


by this part of Scotland is completely unequalled by any other part of the country. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) did not appear tonight. He has already begrudged us the extension of hydroelectricity to many of these parts, and he might have put down a Motion opposing this service as another gift of gold from a generous Ministry of Transport.
We all know that "The Road to the Isles" is a song, which we like to hear sung by Robert Wilson. But we have to remember that at the end of that road there is always a pier. Then come MacBrayne's, and MacBrayne's services are by no means perfect. The biggest burden of all, as far as the people of these Islands are concerned, is the freight charges. This full liability will amount to possibly more than the £360,000 per annum as remuneration of the Company for its services, plus the further amount.
I congratulate the Minister of Transport on the fact that at least the policy of transport for the Highlands and Islands merits about 15 pages in the Agreement. He managed to get the policy of transport for the whole country into about 2½ pages. [An HON. MEMBER: "A sketch."] It is not a sketch. I would describe it as a caricature. How are the 109 coaches to be affected by the new dividing-up policy?
There is a further matter requiring elucidation and I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not here. A battle is going on between the various Front Benchers over the powers of the Minister of Transport concerning fares. In this Agreement, the Minister of Transport definitely has power. It is stated that
…no changes shall be made without the consent of the Minister; and (b) the Company shall forthwith give effect to any changes in such rates and fares which may be required by the Minister,…
On what policy is the Minister of Transport to work or base his intervention to raise or bring down charges? We have a right to know. It is all unknown to us so far, because there was no enlightenment in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Minister may be thinking that now is the time to step in and reduce the charges. We have had the indication

that something should be done for the provinces. What about something being done for the Western Isles and the Highlands of Scotland? Nobody need ask whether the Minister has the power to do something or not. He clearly has taken the power, and what I want to know is how and when he will use it.
There is something else on which we require reassurance. Paragraph 11 (3) of the Agreement says:
For the performance of such road services the Company shall provide a sufficient number of competent, steady, honest and careful drivers of good character and duly licensed to drive.
Paragraph 13 (3) says:
The Company shall recognise the freedom of their workpeople to be members of trade unions.
Could the Under-Secretary or Secretary of State pass that information on to a certain firm in Dundee?
Altogether, this document covers practically every possible contingency for the firm that is to run the service. They just cannot lose, because if they lose for two successive years they are recompensed. What will happen? Do the Government or the Minister of Transport think that by the time the extension of the contract has expired, in 10 years, there will be a much better service for the people? For nearly 50 years the people have been crying out for it.
There is only one solution, and that is that the Government should recognise their responsibility to the people of these Islands and do a little more than pay tribute to their gallantry in time of need. Unless something is done to offset the disadvantages of living in that part of the world it may well be that depopulation will continue. I hope to hear from the Under-Secretary that the Government will start properly to consider justice for the people of the Highlands and Islands as well as the contingencies affecting MacBrayne's.

1.47 a.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirling): We have had an interesting debate, and I think it is rather a pity it did not take place at a more propitious hour. This is a subject not merely of interest to the Scots Members, for there are many English Members who have enjoyed travelling in the Highlands and know them better, I am sorry to say, than a good many of our own people.
I should like to reinforce what hasbeen said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that in considering the whole question of transport in the Highlands it must be remembered that this service is, in effect, the road service of the Highlands. It only requires a little thought to realise that it is virtually an economy to have these steamers. I know of one road which was under consideration which was to cost £500,000 to serve a comparatively small number of people.

Mr. J. MacLeod: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the people in the Western Highlands are using such roads today, and are not using the MacBrayne service? That is happening all over the western seaboard.

Mr. Woodburn: But there are certain parts of the Highlands where it would require the expenditure of £500,000 to make a road. Access by sea is available and makes these parts of the country habitable where otherwise they would not be so.
I hope that the Ministry of Transport will consider this matter not purely from the economic point of view but from the social point of view as well. If the people are to produce food in these parts and get it to market they must have transport, and it is the business of the nation to provide them with the means of transporting their goods. Where that cannot be done by road it must obviously be done by sea. I hope that the Minister, who has Scottish connections, and succeeds another Scottish Minister, will at least view this matter in a sympathetic light and not from a hard commercial point of view.
It is true that the question arose as to whether MacBrayne's should be brought under the Transport Commission, and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) need not worry about once having said that they might become a public service. There is nothing particularly Socialist about nationalisation. The Conservatives invented it long before the Socialists used it. In the main the Conservatives probably nationalised far more services than even the Labour Government did after 1945.
What is the best way of serving the public? That question must be judged on its merits. It may be that in some cases the work is farmed out on condition that

somebody does the service and is allowed a reward for doing it. We may argue as to whether the reward is great or small, but we are in the difficulty that if we are not prepared to pay a reasonable reward we may be left to do the service ourselves. Nobody is quite sure whether that would be an economy, because serving the Highlands of Scotland is no easy task, and it is much wiser to use the services of people who have built up long years of "know how" and experience than to try to jump about in a period when the nation has plenty of other things on hand.

Major McCallum: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that MacBrayne's have had other private concerns in opposition to them, but owing, obviously, to Government assistance and subsidies, they have been able to squash those private concerns each time.

Mr. Woodburn: I have seen in the Highlands, in times when no other vehicle was able to use a certain road, mail vans taking people from place to place. That happened when no other motorist would venture upon the roads.

Major McCallum: I was referring to steamer services.

Mr. Woodburn: It is, of course, open for the puffers and other people to serve the Highlands if they can find trade. Nobody objects to private enterprise carrying out that service, but the State, nevertheless, has to ensure that there are communications for people as an essential basis, although they may be supplemented by other private enterprise.
So far as my hon. Friends are concerned, we are certainly not in any way opposed to this contract. It may be that we can see many improvements that might be made, as most hon. Members have been able to indicate, and I am sure that it is an advantage to the hon. Members who represent the Highlands that they have this opportunity of expressing their views on the contract. If I know them, in spite of the fact that the contract is not to be renewed for 10 years, they will find other opportunities of saying what they have to say about the Highlands and the transport system.
I congratulate the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton) on the restraint he has shown tonight. When I saw the opportunity for discussing freight charges in the Highlands, I thought he was good for at least three-quarters of an hour. His restraint tonight may be an indication that he is reserving himself for another opportune occasion. At this time of night, on behalf of the whole House, I thank the noble Lord for that restraint. I, too, will show a good example by not prolonging the debate further and in allowing the Under-Secretary of State to reply.

1.54 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): At this very late hour, I am sure the House would not wish me to take up too much time, and if I appear to skim rather quickly over the various points that have been raised I think that that would be for the convenience of us all. If I miss any of the points that seem to hon. Members to be important, I shall write to them about them.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that this is not just a matter of economies. There are our social duties —and our national duties—to be performed, and it is in that way that we always look upon the matter. Other Governments have done so, and we hope to maintain the good tradition.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) say, "We must keep MacBrayne's in the Minch." That is the view, I think, of the whole House. He said, further, "Nobody else can carry on as they are doing." I think he is right about that, too. As the hon. Gentleman said the sea is the highway of the Western Isles and the subsidy is justified for this particular service for this particular group of our citizens. I do not think the House will want to enter into a discussion about nationalisation. It is not proposed here, nor was it proposed by the previous Government. I do not think it is suitable for this particular service, for which the country is responsible.
The hon. Member and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) asked about the Inner and Outer Island services. Both

hon. Members mentioned this on previous occasions, and we know what they feel about it. We sympathise with their views, but at the moment it does not seem possible to do what they want. But with the new vessels to be provided in this Agreement we may be able to improve the service in a way which at the moment seems out of the question. I think that that may be the answer.
With regard to the North Ford, the hon. Member for the Western Isles knows we are anxious to help, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said so in the House. I do not need to emphasise how much we recognise that transport is almost the key to the prosperity of the Highlands. That was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney (Mr. Grimond). But how we can improve the transport services to the Islands and reduce freight rates and fares at this time I do not yet know. Nor does anybody else. Yet that should be the common aim, and we are moving towards that goal by improving the MacBrayne service.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll raised the question of MacBrayne's co-operating with the local authorities. We understand that view, and whatever the Scottish Office can do to bring it about will be done. He has also been persistent about telephones, and action will be taken to try to get telephones into these out of the way places so that potential passengers may be warned of any delays in the arrival of boats. If the Oban boat is late for the train it must be most annoying, particularly to my hon. and gallant Friend, but whether we can get the railways to hold up the train is a matter we shall put up to them. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General was present when the question of protection of the mails was raised, and I am sure that he will give this matter his attention.
It has not been possible to decide yet what we are going to do with the new boats. There is very good reason for that. It has to be thought out very carefully, but I can indicate what we fancy will happen, though I do not want to give any guarantee. The new passenger and mail vessel will replace the "Lochness," which is now the reserve boat. The new vessel will be employed on one of the


scheduled routes, either the Inner or the Outer Island route, but it is not yet certain which it will be. The new cargo vessel is to replace either the "Hebrides" or the Clydesdale "the other vessel going into reserve. The House will appreciate that it is not safe to judge the employment of these vessels by the present scheduled services, as the new ships may make possible modifications and improvements.

Major McCallum: Surely the Company are not going to bring in a new passenger boat to replace the "Lochness," the best sea boat they have.

Mr. Stewart: It may well be that my hon. and gallant Friend may be consulted and his advice will be very much welcomed.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Surely it is a strange case which the hon. Gentleman is presenting to us when he says, "We will buy new boats and when we have them we will think what we shall do with them." Surely there is a plan which is being followed. Is there not some purpose in mind arid a route over which they will operate?

Mr. Stewart: It is just that I was being reasonably cautious. These boats are intended to replace the old boats, and what I was asked was to say on what routes the new boats would be operated. That is a matter for MacBrayne's and not for the Scottish Office, and it is not possible for me to say at this moment what it had been decided to do. I intimated as clearly as I could what I fancied would be the destination of those new boats and I think the indication I gave will turn out to be about right.
My hon. and gallant Friend also spoke about the high freights for cars. We all sympathise with his view and if I knew of some way of reducing it I should be very glad. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) very skilfully introduced, as I expected that he would, a comparison between the rates of the company which looks after his part of the world and the rates of MacBrayne's. It would be out of order if I entered into that matter in detail, but I may say that per sea mile, the actual freights to Orkney are slightly less than the other freights.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but he has made two important statements. He has accepted the view that as far as the Islands are concerned the sea is their main road, and he has said that this subsidy is one of the principal factors in the Government policy for Highland transport. In Orkney and Shetland the sea is as much our highway as it is in the Outer Isles. We, too, are having great difficulties over our services, especially the inter-island services which are most expensive, and in some respects, for example the Skerries, quite unsatisfactory. On the Government's own showing we have a very strong case for a subsidy. The Government are, in fact, guaranteeing MacBrayne's a higher rate of profit that our lines earn.

Mr. Stewart: I can only say that the company to which the hon. Member refers has never asked the Government for any assistance, and I can only assume that they are doing reasonably well. The hon. Member did say that some kind of subsidy was necessary and that is the view of us all. He asked me about the issued capital and the capital employed. The issued capital is £500,000 and the capital employed is £700,000.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to this and I think there is some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. On page 8 of the White Paper he will see, at paragraph 19:
There shall first be calculated a sum (hereinafter referred to as the interest on capital ') which shall be either a sum at the rate of 5 per cent. on the mean of the capital employed…
The profit of the company is assessed for the purpose of this Agreement on the capital employed, and those profits, according to the Agreement, may reach a maximum of 6 per cent. and a minimum of 4 per cent. We think it would be a mean of 5 per cent. That is one thing.
Another figure altogether is the dividend which the Company may pay, and the dividends are based, not upon the capital employed, but upon the issued share capital of the Company. There. too, the figures vary from a possible 6 per cent. maximum to a 4 per cent. mini-


mum, with a mean of 5 per cent. That is accounted for by the fact that the profit made upon the capital employed in the Company is, of course, subject to Income Tax Profits Tax, and so on, and, when that is taken off, the situation arises that the dividend on the issued capital may be 4, 5 or 6 per cent. I hope that explains the matter. Hon. Members will note, however, that the maximum dividend actually paid in any year may not exceed 5 per cent.
On the question of a vessel for quick freezing, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised tonight and also the other day, we hope that this is matter which the White Fish Authority may, sooner or later, be able to take up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod) told us about the change in the circumstances in the area north of Kyle, where the shipping services had been stopped, as he told us, with the consent of the local people, and the Highland Panel had also found that was so. A more acceptable and more economic service has now been provided, and we are all pleased that that is the case.
With regard to piers, he suggested that, if MacBrayne's were only using a pier or harbour and not owning it, and they decided to leave that pier or harbour, or not to use it any longer, some arrangement should be made so that it did not fall into disrepair. In this case the local county council or other authority or private person who owned it would remain responsible for the pier's upkeep.

Mr. J. MacLeod: Some of the piers were used to a great extent for fishing. That use is still there, and the point is that the piers are falling into decay.

Mr. Stewart: If it is a MacBrayne pier which they cease to use for this special shipping service it is in the interests of those who lease it for fishing purposes to keep it going. Similarly, if MacBrayne's have vacated a pier owned by someone else, it is the owner who will assume responsibility for the pier.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In the case where MacBrayne's do not own the pier, but where pier dues have to be paid. and the passengers have to stand in the pouring rain to pay their twopences,

is it not possible to get MacBrayne's to collect that payment on the ship, whether they own the pier or not?

Mr. Stewart: I will be pleased to pass on that suggestion. I have seen it in operation elsewhere.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) was quite correct in that letter he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. As regards a grant from the Government, what is intended is that if a scheme goes forward, and the county council are prepared to play, while it is not for me to say that there will be a Government grant—because I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I can say that all the authority of the Scottish Office would be behind the application. With regard to Applecross and Scorraig, my hon. Friend has been asked by the Highland Panel to make a report on this problem, and we shall await with the greatest interest the recommendations which he makes.
I have already dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, about finance. I think that the best answer I can give about Loch Shiel is that I will write to him; otherwise, the reply might delay the House unduly.
To the points made by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), I would reply that we all share his desire to make MacBrayne's both adequate and efficient; we are all agreed about that, and I assure him that anything which we can do to achieve those ends we shall do. I am sorry about the lady who was left standing on the quay at Loch Boisdale. [HON. MEMBERS: "She has gone now."] Perhaps she would have been happier had she gone by flying boat, and if we could get flying boats into these islands, we should be very pleased; but I am not sure that it could be done at present.
I have been asked about policy on fares, and policy generally. Her Majesty's Government's intention is that by a general improvement of the finances of the country, by paying our way, and balancing our accounts, we shall improve the general economics of our land. When that is done, we shall be in a position to make a real advance in the Highland problem. That is our policy; that is


our intention, and we shall make every effort to cause the Highlands to be a better place than we found it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agreement, dated 3rd April, 1952, between Her Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne Limited for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved.

WEST MIDDLESEX HOSPITALS (ANTI-FIRE PRECAUTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Reader Harris(Heston and Isle-worth): I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having been so kind as to wait to hear what I have to say at this hour of the morning.
I wish to speak about fire precautions in hospitals of the West Middlesex Group, which are the West Middlesex, the South-West Middlesex, the King Edward at Ealing, Clayponds at Ealing, St. John's at Twickenham, St. Mary's Cottage hospital at Hampton, the Teddington, Hampton and District, the Queen Victoria at Hanwell, Perivale Maternity, Norwood Hall at Southall, Brentford Cottage, Answick Maternity, and Ealing Chest Clinic.
Briefly, I want to ask the hon. Lady if she is satisfied with the fire prevention arrangements at these hospitals, bearing in mind the following facts. Up to the time that the Regional Hospital Board took over these hospitals it was customary for nurses and other staff to be instructed in fire drill in case of a fire emergency. But, since the Board took over, I understand that the nursing staff has not been given any fire drill or instruction in the fire fighting equipment since 1948. Each new batch of nurses is given a lecture on the use of the equipment but, is that enough? I should have thought that something more ought to have been done.
The Middlesex county fire brigade is situated not far away and could get to the hospitals within a few minutes; but, it would be five minutes at least before

the brigade could get into action after receipt of a call and, of course, it is in the first five minutes of a fire that action is all-important. The prompt use of extinguishers can, of course, make it unnecessary to call the local fire brigade, but if nurses are to be able to use firefighting equipment efficiently they must be fairly regularly instructed in its use. It is not good enough just to give them one lecture at the start of their training.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the amount of money spent in the group during the last four years is sufficient? In 1948, I understand, no money was spent on fire prevention; in 1949, £50 was spent; in 1950, £100; in 1951, £100, and, I believe, a similar amount in 1952. I believe there are a number of things which need doing urgently. I should like the hon. Lady, if she can, to have some of the fire extinguishers examined.
I want to know whether the lead coating on the insides of the extinguishers is still intact so that they will work, or whether there has been any corrosion. If there has been some corrosion and they are not in working order, is there enough money to replace those needing replacing? Has the hon. Lady any information about the actual extinguishers in use in the operating theatres?
I believe it is common knowledge that a metal bromide extinguisher is not a satisfactory one for an operating theatre because of its toxic effect, and that if the money can be raised it is desirable to have carbon dioxide extinguishers for such use. Could the hon. Lady have an examination made of the threads on the hydrants? No doubt she will make the point that the county fire service can get to the hospital within a matter of minutes, but that is not much good if when they get there they cannot get to work quickly.
The national standard thread for hydrants now is what is known as the London round thread. I believe that at some of these hospitals some of the old-fashioned threads, such as the bayonet lug thread and the Metropolitan B thread, are still in use. The fact that some of these old threads are still in use might cause delay in the event of fire.
Then there is the question of the fire escapes attached to these hospitals. I am particularly worried about the fire escape at the South-West Middlesex Hospital. When I say I am worried, I hope no one


will think that there is cause for great alarm. It would be a pity if the patients in the hospital were of the opinion that they were in any very great danger. I do not for a moment believe that they are, but I think escapes are useful having regard to the fact that all the hospitals are about 45 or 50 years old.
In most cases there is probably more than one staircase, but if it was thought necessary to provide these escapes in the first place, it is probably worth while keeping them in good condition. At the South-West Middlesex Hospital there has been considerable erosion on these escapes particularly where they meet the ground and where they are fixed to the building.
I wonder if the hon. Lady could have these escapes examined, and, where they are perished and are unsafe, would either have them renewed, or, if that would take too much steel, remove them altogether. If it is necessary to have any means of escape outside the building at all, there are, of course, other means of saving life such as the canvas chute, which does not require the use of steel at all, and which could, perhaps, be fitted up much more cheaply.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree it is a bad thing to have an escape that possibly will not take the weight of the people escaping. I am not saying that there are any in such bad condition as that, but in some cases, from investigations I have made, they are not safe and have been allowed to perish. I do not think that nearly sufficient steps have been taken to keep them properly painted. That does not require steel or a great amount of money, and I should like to know if the hon. Lady would see that all the escapes at these hospitals were examined with that in view. I believe that there is a faulty escape at the Brentford Cottage Hospital, but there is nothing so serious that it could not be easily put right.
Is there any information about the action taken by hospitals to install testing panels in the operating theatres, as advised in a Ministry circular about a year ago? I do not know whether any of these panels have yet been installed. If no steps have been taken, it would be interesting to know if any hospitals are anywhere near being able to install them. This is particularly important in view of the

attention drawn in the Press to accidents occurring in the theatres. There is a further question: Who is responsible for fire prevention in a particular hospital? Does it rest with the hospital or on a higher authority, like the regional hospital board? I do not suppose there is any need for immediate alarm but we do not want to wait until there is a disaster before things are put right.

2.23 a.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas (Chiswick): My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. R. Harris) has referred directly to two hospitals within my constituency and has kindly given me notice of his intention. He speaks with considerable authority on this subject, and I would not for a moment dispute his suggestion —indeed, I support it—that the best arrangements must be made regarding anti-fire precautions in these hospitals. But we have to be careful not to exaggerate any deficiencies. To do so would undoubtedly give cause for alarm among the patients, and no one wants to do that.
My hon. Friend has mentioned particularly Brentford Cottage Hospital, and, because I had notice, I took the opportunity last week-end of looking over the fire prevention devices there and having a word with the matron. To my inexpert eye the precautions appeared quite adequate. The majority of the wards in this hospital are on the ground floor and there are only three small private wards on the top or first floor. In any emergency it would be possible for patients on the ground floor wards to walk quickly into the garden, either through french windows or doors in the passages. There would be no real danger there. As for the three private wards on the top floor there is a perfectly safe exit down one of the two fire escapes. I walked down both of them and they are in my opinion satisfactory, although I agree that both of them could do with a coat of paint.
My hon. Friend made one particular point about fire practices. I was given an assurance by the matron that fire practices take place regularly every three months. In point of fact the next is, I think, due to take place on Thursday. If my hon. Friend can make the necessary arrangements with his Whip on this occasion no doubt they will be very glad to see him at the hospital. I understand


that every three months firemen from the local fire brigade give the nurses lectures on anti-fire precautions. On all these matters the matron assures me she is given the fullest and most willing cooperation on the part of the Chief Engineer of the South-West Middlesex Management Committee.
On the broad point I must say that I wholly agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of ensuring a proper supervision over anti-fire precautions. But after my own personal inspection of the Brentford Cottage Hospital I am bound to say that I think the anti-fire precautions are here satisfactory, and I consider that they are wholly in keeping with the manner in which this hospital is so well run.

2.26 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) for the restrained manner in which they have raised this very important topic.
In the time available I should like to deal with as many as possible of the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth; but perhaps he will for give me if I am not so full in some details of the 12 hospitals he mentioned, as most of his complaints were concentrated around the largest hospital—the West Middlesex Hospital, which has 1,100 beds, where an officer of my Department carried out a very thorough and full inspection last week.
On the point of financial allocation I think my hon. Friend was not wholly fair—perhaps unwittingly——in giving the sums of expenditure on the fire prevention services; because there is no specific allocation for fire prevention services, as such. As part of the general maintenance of all buildings and equipment a sum of money is allocated for that purpose and covers among other matters the necessary precautions with regard to the structure, fire prevention, fire escapes and the like. Therefore, his figures do not fully reflect the money which may be spent on items which could be calculated as fire prevention devices.

The South-West Middlesex group are, however, steadily carrying forward, within the limits of the financial programme, maintenance and painting of the fire escapes at the West Middlesex Hospital. All except seven—which includes the four about which the hon. Gentleman complained—have been scraped and repainted during the last two years. Sixty extinguishers in the whole group have been noted for replacement, of which 30 will be replaced this year and the remaining 30 next year.
The Fire Prevention Officer informed the inspector from my Department that periodical testing is carried out on all this equipment and he was satisfied that patients were in no way endangered in the event of fire by anything in respect of the present extinguisher position. With regard to methyl bromide extinguishers—which, as my hon. Friend knows, are very effective in care of fire—it is realised that there is the possibility of a toxic effect in confined spaces and these, as and when possible, are gradually being replaced.
So far as threads on the hydrants are concerned, some are admittedly of old types; but they have been tested and they are considered to be serviceable, because the fire brigade carries adaptors for all types of threads, and to scrap and replace all this equipment would involve enormous cost and could not be carried out in one operation; but as and when replacements are necessary the new standard type will be installed.
The Fire Prevention Officer expressed himself as satisfied with the alarm system and with the fire-fighting equipment generally, in all the hospitals in the group, to meet any emergency. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that testing panels are nearly ready for installation in the theatres of this group.
With regard to the five escapes he mentioned, on the one at Brentford Cottage Hospital—on which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick tried his strength—there was a broken tread which has already been mended.
So far as the four escapes of the West Middlesex Hospital are concerned, these are admittedly old, but they are substantial cast-iron columns in good condition with steel stringers and platform supports. Some of the supports are corroded


but they have been tested and it is not felt that the fundamental, underlying strength is yet in danger of collapsing in any way. They have been fully inspected. There are 1,100 beds in the Hospital and of the escapes, upon which criticism has been raised, two serve two blocks which are occupied by 16 nurses and certain of the doctors. They are only one floor high and could be dispensed with, if not used for patients as they would not be in this instance, and each block has alternative fire escape avenue, as well as ample window space on the first floor.
There are two other escapes, about which the hon. Member made complaint. In "J" block, with eight patients on the second floor, there is a fire escape adjoining a slightly bulging wall. Criticism was made by the hon. Gentleman regarding that, but it has been tested and is not considered to be a source of danger. The other escape is in "O" block with 30 geriatic patients. We consider it to be in the best condition of the escapes in question and in no way in a dangerous state.
In "J" and "O" blocks, there are two alternative avenues of escape, a central staircase and another fire escape at the end of each block. We do not feel that there is any present cause for alarm in respect of these particular escapes and the methods to be used in case of fire.
So far as the other hospitals are concerned, I was not aware of any detailed complaint, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have details and if he would like investigations made regarding smaller hospitals, I will be only too happy to have this done. At West Middlesex Hospital, drills, as such, are not so conducted today, but each school does have four hours lecture and technical demon-

stration of equipment given by the fire prevention officer. To that extent, it is felt that Hospital is adequately covered.
It is very near indeed to one of the main fire brigade stations and in considering the West Middlesex Hospital one has to bear in mind the important consideration that there is a direct line to the fire brigade station, which can have two appliances on the scene in 2½ minutes, and that five other appliances, with 18 to 25 professional firemen can be inside the Hospital within four minutes. Everyone will agree that is an adequate coverage for this important Hospital.
The group engineer is the senior officer ultimately responsible to the Hospital Management Committee for the fire prevention arrangements, but there is a full-time fire prevention officer, who also acts as a specialist in his particular line under the group engineer, and is in charge of arrangements at this Hospital. Generally. I believe precautions are adequate. We would like to replace much of the old and indeed any sub-standard equipment. but anything we do in that line must be done in accordance with the money and materials available. Fire escapes are very costly in steel.
The safety precautions are constantly under attention by qualified officers and there is no need for alarm. on the part of patients or those whose relatives are in the Hospital. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he raised this matter and to tell him that we shall be only too glad to look into any points concerning the remaining hospitals he mentioned.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.